I think everybody should listen the initial 47 minutes
Notable quotes:
"... Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity making the facade not so subtle. ..."
"... Literally the only endorsement I've heard of Tulsi Gabbard - and a strikingly convincing one ..."
"... Isn't it just a question of the profits in the military business? ..."
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. The combination
of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the
United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for
America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices
that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador
to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary
of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He
began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal
American interpreter during President Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see
http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several well-received books on statecraft and
diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East was
published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China, America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige,
appeared in March 2013. America's Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the
most recent revision of The Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power:
Statecraft and Diplomacy. He was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on
"diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the Harvard
Law School. He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than
three decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint
ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries.
Well worth the watch and hope more see it, especially the presentation in the initial 47
minutes. We Americans take our deficits and the $ as the reserve currency far too
lightly.
Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely
visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news
organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can
clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the
population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity
making the facade not so subtle.
No, not mercenaries, this is a protection racket. The U.N. address in late 2018 by the
President (the laughter spoke volumes) was about as insightful as a "goodfellas" scene where
the shakedown of the little guy is highlighted. It was the speeches by other countries at the
meeting that was most informative.
A definitive pullback from U.S. hegemony was palpable, real, and un-moderated. Large and
small countries all expressed an unwillingness to be held under the thumb of the global
bully. This is the result of having an over abundance of a particle within D.C.; not the
electron, photon, or neutron...but the moron.
Russia has closed major border crossings with China across the Far East due to the rapid spread of coronavirus. That constitutes
a significant blow to a trading relationship that had only just begun to fully blossom. The closures come just as new auto and rail
bridges spanning the Amur River are finally
reaching
completion.
The primary line of debate among Russia-China relations analysts is whether the "rapprochement" is robust and tending toward even
a genuine alliance or whether it is weak and has little to show for decades of cooperation other than a few rhetorical flourishes.
After all, the skeptics note, if this bilateral relationship is so robust, then why did it take so long to get those bridges built?
The China-Russia trading relationship does indeed remain underdeveloped and will evidently face additional headwinds in the near
future (along with all of China's trading relationships, so it seems). But
the importance of security ties
can hardly be disputed, especially if one takes the long view. Could China have fought the United States to a stalemate in the Korean
War without Soviet military assistance? Not a chance. More recently, Russia's sale of high-tech air and naval weaponry during the
1990s and 2000s created a solid foundation for today's muscle-bound dragon with both claws (DF-26) and sharp fangs (e.g. YJ-18).
But will it go further?
A tantalizing hint was offered by Russian president Vladimir Putin at the Valdai Conference in early October 2019. During his
remarks, he dropped the following bombshell: "I probably won't open a big secret. It'll become clear anyhow. We are now helping our
Chinese partners to create a missile attack warning system. This is a very serious thing, which will increase the defense capability
of the People's Republic of China in a fundamental way. Because now only the USA and Russia have such a system [Большой тайны, наверно,
не открою. Все равно это станет ясно. Мы сейчас помогаем нашим китайским партнерам создать систему СПРН – систему предупреждения
о ракетном нападении. Это очень серьезная вещь, которая капитальным, кардинальным образом повысит обороноспособность Китайской Народной
Республики. Потому что сейчас такую систему имеют только США и Россия]." This seemingly major step forward in Russia-China military
cooperation demands greater scrutiny. It also provides an interesting opportunity to gauge opinion among Russian strategists regarding
the long-term viability of a close military partnership with the Middle Kingdom.
One impressively comprehensive Russian appraisal begins
by stating that "Russia had to look for various options for answering Washington's actions" to withdraw from the INF Treaty. The
same article notes somewhat ominously that the United States is preparing in case of "accidental nuclear war with Russia." Employing
the Russian acronym "SPRN" literally "warning systems against rocket attack [системы предупреждения о ракетном нападении]" for early
warning system, this assessment also makes the important point that Russia's SPRN has only recently completed a long process of upgrades
meant to fill "gaps [разрывы]" caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union, when key facilities for early warning were located in
non-Russian parts of the USSR.
The article quotes one Moscow defense expert, Igor Korotchenko [Игор Коротченко], as offering the following assessment: "This
is really a huge contribution of Russia to strategic stability, since China receives a powerful tool in order not to become a victim
of the first disarming blow from the United States." Another Russian expert, Konstantin Sivkov [Константин Сивков], maintained that
this move would enhance "global stability" but also articulated some concern with respect to Russia's long-term interests. "When
China has at its disposal all the technologies that Russia has at its disposal, or creates similar ones, it will cease to need Russia
as a defender," Sivkov said. "And this could adversely affect Russian-Chinese relations." Korotchenko, however, is more bullish on
the long-term prospects for the defense relationship with Beijing. He underlined the commercial prospects for Russian companies,
and added that the early warning initiative will "contribute to the further rapprochement of Russia and China, building a common
security policy [поспособствует дальнейшему сближению России и Китая, выстраиванию общей политики в области безопасности]."
That's an interesting disagreement among Russian security specialists, for sure, but another rather significant observation regarding
these developments was offered in this same article by the former deputy commander of Russia's air defense command, Alexander Luzan
[Александр Лузан]. He contends that Russia will benefit from the enhanced cooperation with Beijing on an early warning. Luzan explains
that the ground components of Russia's SPRN are comprised of []long range "Voronezh" [Воронеж] radars that can see out four thousand
to six thousand kilometers to detect ICBM launches. Short-range "Sunflower [Подсолнухи]" radars are more suitable for warning of
short-range launches, but also offer ship-detection capabilities. Directly reflecting on operational advantages for the Russian military,
Luzan observes: "Vladivostok and Primorye are protected here, but there is nothing 'in depth.' We once tried to deploy our facilities
in Mongolia, but it didn't work out very well. Therefore, if the Chinese close this 'tongue,' it will be very important for Russia
[Владивосток и Приморье у нас защищены, а 'в глубину' там ничего нет. Мы когда-то в Монголии пытались разместить свои комплексы,
но не очень получилось. Потому если китайцы этот 'язычок' закроют, то для России это будет очень важно]." Again citing this Russian
general, the article states that "a unified information space is created and data is exchanged with Chinese radars, [and therefore]
'the security of our country from the east will be even better.'"
Such interpretations are generally in accord with the analysis
of Vladimir Petrovsky [Владимир Петровский,], a senior fellow and military specialist at Moscow's Institute of the Far East of the
Russian Academy of Sciences. This analyst writes that many believe that Putin's announcement of this strategic cooperation initiative
at Valdai signals that "the military alliance between Russia and China . . . has finally become real." Petrovsky also notes that
other specialists have begun to speculate on the meaning of a "retaliatory strike" under such circumstances, wherein the early warning
is relayed by a third country. He quotes the Russian president (speaking at Valdai) further on the matter of motives for new missile
deployments in the Asia-Pacific region: "we suddenly heard from the American military that the first step in this direction would
be taken just in Asia. But that step also impacts on us, because we need to understand: where in Asia, will Russian territory be
endangered or not? By the way, it's immediately clear what was the root cause of the exit: not Russia and not mythical violations
of the [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty by us. If they are going to put [U.S. missiles] in Asia, then Asia is the primary
reason for withdrawing from this Treaty [вдруг услышали от американских военных, что первый шаг в этом направлении будет сделан как
раз в Азии. Но он и нас затрагивает, потому что надо понять: где в Азии, будет доставать это российскую территорию или нет? Кстати
говоря, сразу понятно, что было первопричиной выхода: не Россия и не мифические нарушения нами Договора. Если они собираются ставить
в Азии, то Азия и является первопричиной выхода из этого Договора]." In other words, Putin's announcement of this initiative to accelerate
military cooperation with China is intended, in part, as a response to the United States' move to exit the INF accord.
Strongly hinting that Beijing might well gain access to Russian early-warning radars based in the Arctic, Petrovsky observes,
"Taking into account geography, it is quite possible to develop protocols for the exchange of data between national SPRN." He further
contends that this early warning cooperation will be "mutually beneficial and not without compensation [эта помощь -- взаимовыгодная
и небезвозмездная]." This military expert explains that China still can learn from Russian radar proficiency, but also implies that
the Russian side may gain some advantages from China's evident prowess in microelectronics, for example. Moreover, he suggests, "a
possible Chinese satellite constellation could be a good addition to Russian orbital facilities." Still, Petrovsky concludes that
Russia and China "are not creating a military-political alliance. It is rather a matter of coordinating the military policies." Playing
down the significance of this new initiative, this specialist also notes that Russia and China have been holding annual ballistic
missile defense command and staff exercises for about a decade already.
"... Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans, but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps. Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent shape public perception." ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no one really wanted. ..."
"... When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. ..."
"... Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of war." ..."
"... The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam. ..."
"... Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. ..."
The war on Iraq won't be remembered for how it was waged so much as for how it was sold. It
was a propaganda war, a war of perception management, where loaded phrases, such as "weapons of
mass destruction" and "rogue state" were hurled like precision weapons at the target audience:
us.
To understand the Iraq war you don't need to consult generals, but the spin doctors and PR
flacks who stage-managed the countdown to war from the murky corridors of Washington where
politics, corporate spin and psy-ops spooks cohabit.
Consider the picaresque journey of Tony Blair's plagiarized dossier on Iraq, from a grad
student's website to a cut-and-paste job in the prime minister's bombastic speech to the House
of Commons. Blair, stubborn and verbose, paid a price for his grandiose puffery. Bush, who
looted whole passages from Blair's speech for his own clumsy presentations, has skated freely
through the tempest. Why?
Unlike Blair, the Bush team never wanted to present a legal case for war. They had no
interest in making any of their allegations about Iraq hold up to a standard of proof. The real
effort was aimed at amping up the mood for war by using the psychology of fear.
Facts were never important to the Bush team. They were disposable nuggets that could be
discarded at will and replaced by whatever new rationale that played favorably with their polls
and focus groups. The war was about weapons of mass destruction one week, al-Qaeda the next.
When neither allegation could be substantiated on the ground, the fall back position became the
mass graves (many from the Iran/Iraq war where the U.S.A. backed Iraq) proving that Saddam was
an evil thug who deserved to be toppled. The motto of the Bush PR machine was: Move on. Don't
explain. Say anything to conceal the perfidy behind the real motives for war. Never look back.
Accuse the questioners of harboring unpatriotic sensibilities. Eventually, even the cagey
Wolfowitz admitted that the official case for war was made mainly to make the invasion
palatable, not to justify it.
The Bush claque of neocon hawks viewed the Iraq war as a product and, just like a new pair
of Nikes, it required a roll-out campaign to soften up the consumers. The same techniques (and
often the same PR gurus) that have been used to hawk cigarettes, SUVs and nuclear waste dumps
were deployed to retail the Iraq war. To peddle the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell
and company recruited public relations gurus into top-level jobs at the Pentagon and the State
Department. These spinmeisters soon had more say over how the rationale for war on Iraq should
be presented than intelligence agencies and career diplomats. If the intelligence didn't fit
the script, it was shaded, retooled or junked.
Take Charlotte Beers whom Powell picked as undersecretary of state in the post-9/11 world.
Beers wasn't a diplomat. She wasn't even a politician. She was a grand diva of spin, known on
the business and gossip pages as "the queen of Madison Avenue." On the strength of two
advertising campaigns, one for Uncle Ben's Rice and another for Head and Shoulder's dandruff
shampoo, Beers rocketed to the top of the heap in the PR world, heading two giant PR houses:
Ogilvy and Mathers as well as J. Walter Thompson.
At the State Department Beers, who had met Powell in 1995 when they both served on the board
of Gulf Airstream, worked at, in Powell's words, "the branding of U.S. foreign policy." She
extracted more than $500 million from Congress for her Brand America campaign, which largely
focused on beaming U.S. propaganda into the Muslim world, much of it directed at teens.
"Public diplomacy is a vital new arm in what will combat terrorism over time," said Beers.
"All of a sudden we are in this position of redefining who America is, not only for ourselves,
but for the outside world." Note the rapt attention Beers pays to the manipulation of
perception, as opposed, say, to alterations of U.S. policy.
Old-fashioned diplomacy involves direct communication between representatives of nations, a
conversational give and take, often fraught with deception (see April Glaspie), but an exchange
nonetheless. Public diplomacy, as defined by Beers, is something else entirely. It's a one-way
street, a unilateral broadcast of American propaganda directly to the public, domestic and
international, a kind of informational carpet-bombing.
The themes of her campaigns were as simplistic and flimsy as a Bush press conference. The
American incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were all about bringing the balm of "freedom" to
oppressed peoples. Hence, the title of the U.S. war: Operation Iraqi Freedom, where cruise
missiles were depicted as instruments of liberation. Bush himself distilled the Beers equation
to its bizarre essence: "This war is about peace."
Beers quietly resigned her post a few weeks before the first volley of tomahawk missiles
battered Baghdad. From her point of view, the war itself was already won, the fireworks of
shock and awe were all after play.
Over at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld drafted Victoria "Torie" Clarke as his director of
public affairs. Clarke knew the ropes inside the Beltway. Before becoming Rumsfeld's
mouthpiece, she had commanded one of the world's great parlors for powerbrokers: Hill and
Knowlton's D.C. office.
Almost immediately upon taking up her new gig, Clarke convened regular meetings with a
select group of Washington's top private PR specialists and lobbyists to develop a marketing
plan for the Pentagon's forthcoming terror wars. The group was filled with heavy-hitters and
was strikingly bipartisan in composition. She called it the Rumsfeld Group and it included PR
executive Sheila Tate, columnist Rich Lowry, and Republican political consultant Rich
Galen.
The brain trust also boasted top Democratic fixer Tommy Boggs, brother of NPR's Cokie
Roberts and son of the late Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana. At the very time Boggs was
conferring with top Pentagon brass on how to frame the war on terror, he was also working
feverishly for the royal family of Saudi Arabia. In 2002 alone, the Saudis paid his Qorvis PR
firm $20.2 million to protect its interests in Washington. In the wake of hostile press
coverage following the exposure of Saudi links to the 9/11 hijackers, the royal family needed
all the well-placed help it could buy. They seem to have gotten their money's worth. Boggs'
felicitous influence-peddling may help to explain why the references to Saudi funding of
al-Qaeda were dropped from the recent congressional report on the investigation into
intelligence failures and 9/11.
According to the trade publication PR Week, the Rumsfeld Group sent "messaging advice" to
the Pentagon. The group told Clarke and Rumsfeld that in order to get the American public to
buy into the war on terrorism, they needed to suggest a link to nation states, not just
nebulous groups such as al-Qaeda. In other words, there needed to be a fixed target for the
military campaigns, some distant place to drop cruise missiles and cluster bombs. They
suggested the notion (already embedded in Rumsfeld's mind) of playing up the notion of
so-called rogue states as the real masters of terrorism. Thus was born the Axis of Evil, which,
of course, wasn't an "axis" at all, since two of the states, Iran and Iraq, hated each other,
and neither had anything at all to do with the third, North Korea.
Tens of millions in federal money were poured into private public relations and media firms
working to craft and broadcast the Bush dictat that Saddam had to be taken out before the Iraqi
dictator blew up the world by dropping chemical and nuclear bombs from long-range drones. Many
of these PR executives and image consultants were old friends of the high priests in the Bush
inner sanctum. Indeed, they were veterans, like Cheney and Powell, of the previous war against
Iraq, another engagement that was more spin than combat .
At the top of the list was John Rendon, head of the D.C. firm, the Rendon Group. Rendon is
one of Washington's heaviest hitters, a Beltway fixer who never let political affiliation stand
in the way of an assignment. Rendon served as a media consultant for Michael Dukakis and Jimmy
Carter, as well as Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Whenever the Pentagon wanted to go to war, he
offered his services at a price. During Desert Storm, Rendon pulled in $100,000 a month from
the Kuwaiti royal family. He followed this up with a $23 million contract from the CIA to
produce anti-Saddam propaganda in the region.
As part of this CIA project, Rendon created and named the Iraqi National Congress and tapped
his friend Ahmed Chalabi, the shady financier, to head the organization.
Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon handed the Rendon Group another big assignment: public
relations for the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Rendon was also deeply involved in the planning
and public relations for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, though both Rendon and the Pentagon
refuse to disclose the details of the group's work there.
But it's not hard to detect the manipulative hand of Rendon behind many of the Iraq war's
signature events, including the toppling of the Saddam statue (by U.S. troops and Chalabi
associates) and videotape of jubilant Iraqis waving American flags as the Third Infantry rolled
by them. Rendon had pulled off the same stunt in the first Gulf War, handing out American flags
to Kuwaitis and herding the media to the orchestrated demonstration. "Where do you think they
got those American flags?" clucked Rendon in 1991. "That was my assignment."
The Rendon Group may also have had played a role in pushing the phony intelligence that has
now come back to haunt the Bush administration. In December of 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported
that the inner circle of the Bush White House preferred the intelligence coming from Chalabi
and his associates to that being proffered by analysts at the CIA.
So Rendon and his circle represented a new kind of off-the-shelf PSYOPs , the privatization
of official propaganda. "I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician," said
Rendon. "I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or
corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception
manager."
What exactly, is perception management? The Pentagon defines it this way: "actions to convey
and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their
emotions, motives and objective reasoning." In other words, lying about the intentions of the
U.S. government. In a rare display of public frankness, the Pentagon actually let slip its plan
(developed by Rendon) to establish a high-level den inside the Department Defense for
perception management. They called it the Office of Strategic Influence and among its many
missions was to plant false stories in the press.
Nothing stirs the corporate media into outbursts of pious outrage like an official
government memo bragging about how the media are manipulated for political objectives. So the
New York Times and Washington Post threw indignant fits about the Office of Strategic
Influence; the Pentagon shut down the operation, and the press gloated with satisfaction on its
victory. Yet, Rumsfeld told the Pentagon press corps that while he was killing the office, the
same devious work would continue. "You can have the corpse," said Rumsfeld. "You can have the
name. But I'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done. And I have."
At a diplomatic level, despite the hired guns and the planted stories, this image war was
lost. It failed to convince even America's most fervent allies and dependent client states that
Iraq posed much of a threat. It failed to win the blessing of the U.N. and even NATO, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Washington. At the end of the day, the vaunted coalition of the willing
consisted of Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and a cohort of former Soviet bloc nations. Even
so, the citizens of the nations that cast their lot with the U.S.A. overwhelmingly opposed the
war.
Domestically, it was a different story. A population traumatized by terror threats and
shattered economy became easy prey for the saturation bombing of the Bush message that Iraq was
a terrorist state linked to al-Qaeda that was only minutes away from launching attacks on
America with weapons of mass destruction.
Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of
threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans,
but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the
American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was
behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon.
Of course, the closest Saddam came to possessing a nuke was a rusting gas centrifuge buried
for 13 years in the garden of Mahdi Obeidi, a retired Iraqi scientist. Iraq didn't have any
functional chemical or biological weapons. In fact, it didn't even possess any SCUD missiles,
despite erroneous reports fed by Pentagon PR flacks alleging that it had fired SCUDs into
Kuwait.
This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps.
Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few
weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent
shape public perception."
During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized
opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the
Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no
one really wanted.
What the Pentagon sought was a new kind of living room war, where instead of photos of
mangled soldiers and dead Iraqi kids, they could control the images Americans viewed and to a
large extent the content of the stories. By embedding reporters inside selected divisions,
Clarke believed the Pentagon could count on the reporters to build relationships with the
troops and to feel dependent on them for their own safety. It worked, naturally. One reporter
for a national network trembled on camera that the U.S. Army functioned as "our protectors."
The late David Bloom of NBC confessed on the air that he was willing to do "anything and
everything they can ask of us."
When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the
war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a
fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain
death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. Of course,
nearly every detail of her heroic adventure proved to be as fictive and maudlin as any
made-for-TV-movie. But the ordeal of Private Lynch, which dominated the news for more than a
week, served its purpose: to distract attention from a stalled campaign that was beginning to
look at lot riskier than the American public had been hoodwinked into believing.
The Lynch story was fed to the eager press by a Pentagon operation called Combat Camera, the
Army network of photographers, videographers and editors that sends 800 photos and 25 video
clips a day to the media. The editors at Combat Camera carefully culled the footage to present
the Pentagon's montage of the war, eliding such unsettling images as collateral damage, cluster
bombs, dead children and U.S. soldiers, napalm strikes and disgruntled troops.
"A lot of our imagery will have a big impact on world opinion," predicted Lt. Jane Larogue,
director of Combat Camera in Iraq. She was right. But as the hot war turned into an even hotter
occupation, the Pentagon, despite airy rhetoric from occupation supremo Paul Bremer about
installing democratic institutions such as a free press, moved to tighten its monopoly on the
flow images out of Iraq. First, it tried to shut down Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel. Then
the Pentagon intimated that it would like to see all foreign TV news crews banished from
Baghdad.
Few newspapers fanned the hysteria about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction as sedulously as did the Washington Post. In the months leading up to the war, the
Post's pro-war op-eds outnumbered the anti-war columns by a 3-to-1 margin.
Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass
destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington
Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of
war."
The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly
attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam.
Anything to punish Iran was the message coming from the White House. Donald Rumsfeld himself
was sent as President Ronald Reagan's personal envoy to Baghdad. Rumsfeld conveyed the bold
message than an Iraq defeat would be viewed as a "strategic setback for the United States."
This sleazy alliance was sealed with a handshake caught on videotape. When CNN reporter Jamie
McIntyre replayed the footage for Rumsfeld in the spring of 2003, the secretary of defense
snapped, "Where'd you get that? Iraqi television?"
The current crop of Iraq hawks also saw Saddam much differently then. Take the writer Laura
Mylroie, sometime colleague of the New York Times' Judy Miller, who persists in peddling the
ludicrous conspiracy that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
How times have changed! In 1987, Mylroie felt downright cuddly toward Saddam. She wrote an
article for the New Republic titled "Back Iraq: Time for a U.S. Tilt in the Mideast," arguing
that the U.S. should publicly embrace Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against the Islamic
fundamentalists in Iran. The co-author of this mesmerizing weave of wonkery was none other than
Daniel Pipes, perhaps the nation's most bellicose Islamophobe. "The American weapons that Iraq
could make good use of include remotely scatterable and anti-personnel mines and
counterartillery radar," wrote Mylroie and Pipes. "The United States might also consider
upgrading intelligence it is supplying Baghdad."
In the rollout for the war, Mylroie seemed to be everywhere hawking the invasion of Iraq.
She would often appear on two or three different networks in the same day. How did the reporter
manage this feat? She had help in the form of Eleana Benador, the media placement guru who runs
Benador Associates. Born in Peru, Benador parlayed her skills as a linguist into a lucrative
career as media relations whiz for the Washington foreign policy elite. She also oversees the
Middle East Forum, a fanatically pro-Zionist white paper mill. Her clients include some of the
nation's most fervid hawks, including Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Al Haig, Max Boot,
Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, and Judy Miller. During the Iraq war, Benador's assignment was to
embed this squadron of pro-war zealots into the national media, on talk shows, and op-ed
pages.
Benador not only got them the gigs, she also crafted the theme and made sure they all stayed
on message. "There are some things, you just have to state them in a different way, in a
slightly different way," said Benador. "If not, people get scared." Scared of intentions of
their own government.
It could have been different. All of the holes in the Bush administration's gossamer case
for war were right there for the mainstream press to expose. Instead, the U.S. press, just like
the oil companies, sought to commercialize the Iraq war and profit from the invasions. They
didn't want to deal with uncomfortable facts or present voices of dissent.
Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk
show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a
running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired
generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. The network's executives
blamed the cancellation on sagging ratings. In fact, during its run Donahue's show attracted
more viewers than any other program on the network. The real reason for the pre-emptive strike
on Donahue was spelled out in an internal memo from anxious executives at NBC. Donahue, the
memo said, offered "a difficult face for NBC in a time of war. He seems to delight in
presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's
motives."
The memo warned that Donahue's show risked tarring MSNBC as an unpatriotic network, "a home
for liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every
opportunity." So, with scarcely a second thought, the honchos at MSNBC gave Donahue the boot
and hoisted the battle flag.
It's war that sells.
There's a helluva caveat, of course. Once you buy it, the merchants of war accept no
returns.
In any case withdrawal from Syria was a surprising and bold move on the Part of the Trump. You can criticizes Trump for not doing
more but before that he bahvaves as a typical neocon, or a typical Republican presidents (which are the same things). And he started
on this path just two month after inauguration bombing Syria under false pretences. So this is something
I think the reason of change is that Trump intuitively realized the voters are abandoning him in droves and the sizable faction
of his voters who voted for him because of his promises to end foreign wars iether already defected or is ready to defect. So this is
a move designed to keep them.
Notable quotes:
"... "America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. ..."
President Trump's big announcement to pull US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan is now emerging less as a peace move, and more
a rationalization of American military power in the Middle East. In a surprise visit to US forces in Iraq this week, Trump
said he had no intention of withdrawing the troops in that country, who have been there for nearly 15 years since GW Bush invaded
back in 2003.
Hinting at private discussions with commanders in Iraq, Trump boasted that US forces would in the future launch attacks from there
into Syria if and when needed. Presumably that rapid force deployment would apply to other countries in the region, including Afghanistan.
In other words, in typical business-style transactional thinking, Trump sees the pullout from Syria and Afghanistan as a cost-cutting
exercise for US imperialism. Regarding Syria, he has bragged about Turkey being assigned, purportedly, to "finish off" terror
groups. That's Trump subcontracting out US interests.
Critics and supporters of Trump are confounded. After his Syria and Afghanistan pullout call, domestic critics and NATO allies
have accused him of walking from the alleged "fight against terrorism" and of ceding strategic ground to US adversaries Russia
and Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump's supporters have viewed his decision in more benign light, cheering the president for "sticking it to"
the deep state and military establishment, assuming he's delivering on electoral promises to end overseas wars.
However, neither view gets what is going on. Trump is not scaling back US military power; he is rationalizing it like a cost-benefit
analysis, as perhaps only a real-estate-wheeler-dealer-turned president would appreciate. Trump is not snubbing US militarism or
NATO allies, nor is he letting loose an inner peace spirit. He is as committed to projecting American military as ruthlessly and
as recklessly as any other past occupant of the White House. The difference is Trump wants to do it on the cheap.
Here's what he said to reporters on Air Force One before touching down in Iraq:
"The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. It's not fair when the burden is all on us, the United
States We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people haven't even heard about. Frankly, it's ridiculous."
He added: "We're no longer the suckers, folks."
Laughably, Trump's griping about US forces "spread all over the world" unwittingly demonstrates the insatiable, monstrous
nature of American militarism. But Trump paints this vice as a virtue, which, he complains, Washington gets no thanks for from the
150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in.
As US troops greeted him in Iraq, the president made explicit how the new American militarism would henceforth operate.
"America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want
us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said.
This reiterates a big bugbear for this president in which he views US allies and client regimes as "not pulling their weight"
in terms of military deployment. Trump has been browbeating European NATO members to cough up more on military budgets, and he has
berated the Saudis
and other Gulf Arab regimes to pay more for American interventions.
Notably, however, Trump has never questioned the largesse that US taxpayers fork out every year to Israel in the form of nearly
$4 billion in military aid. To be sure, that money is not a gift because much of it goes back to the Pentagon from sales of fighter
jets and missile systems.
The long-held notion that the US has served as the "world's policeman" is, of course, a travesty.
Since WWII, all presidents and the Washington establishment have constantly harped on, with self-righteousness, about America's
mythical role as guarantor of global security.
Dozens of illegal wars on almost every continent and millions of civilian deaths attest to the real, heinous conduct of American
militarism as a weapon to secure US corporate capitalism.
But with US economic power in historic decline amid a national debt now over $22 trillion, Washington can no longer afford its
imperialist conduct in the traditional mode of direct US military invasions and occupations.
Perhaps, it takes a cost-cutting, raw-toothed capitalist like Trump to best understand the historic predicament, even if only
superficially.
This gives away the real calculation behind his troop pullout from Syria and Afghanistan. Iraq is going to serve as a new regional
hub for force projection on a demand-and-supply basis. In addition, more of the dirty work can be contracted out to Washington's
clients like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who will be buying even more US weaponry to prop the military-industrial complex.
This would explain why Trump made his hurried, unexpected visit to Iraq this week. Significantly, he
said
: "A lot of people are going to come around to my way of thinking", regarding his decision on withdrawing forces from Syria
and Afghanistan.
Since his troop pullout plan announced on December 19, there has been serious pushback from senior Pentagon figures, hawkish Republicans
and Democrats, and the anti-Trump media. The atmosphere is almost seditious against the president. Trump flying off to Iraq on Christmas
night was
reportedly his first visit to troops in an overseas combat zone since becoming president two years ago.
What Trump seemed to be doing was reassuring the Pentagon and corporate America that he is not going all soft and dovish. Not
at all. He is letting them know that he is aiming for a leaner, meaner US military power, which can save money on the number of foreign
bases by using rapid reaction forces out of places like Iraq, as well as by subcontracting operations out to regional clients.
Thus, Trump is not coming clean out of any supposed principle when he cuts back US forces overseas. He is merely applying his
knack for screwing down costs and doing things on the cheap as a capitalist tycoon overseeing US militarism.
During past decades when American capitalism was relatively robust, US politicians and media could indulge in the fantasy of their
military forces going around the world in large-scale formations to selflessly "defend freedom and democracy."
Today, US capitalism is broke. It simply can't sustain its global military empire. Enter Donald Trump with his "business solutions."
But in doing so, this president, with his cheap utilitarianism and transactional exploitative mindset, lets the cat out of the
bag. As he says, the US cannot be the world's policeman. Countries are henceforth going to have to pay for "our protection."
Inadvertently, Trump is showing up US power for what it really is: a global thug running a protection racket.
It's always been the case. Except now it's in your face. Trump is no Smedley Butler, the former Marine general who in the 1930s
condemned US militarism as a Mafia operation. This president is stupidly revealing the racket, while still thinking it is something
virtuous.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.
Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor
for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked
as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist
based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
dnm1136
Once again, Cunningham has hit the nail on the head. Trump mistakenly conflates fear with respect. In reality, around the world,
the US is feared but generally not respected.
My guess is that the same was true about Trump as a businessman, i.e., he was not respected, only feared due to his willingness
to pursue his "deals" by any means that "worked" for him, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, seemingly gracious or mean-spirited.
William Smith
Complaining how the US gets no thanks for its foreign intervention. Kind of like a rapist claiming he should be thanked for
"pleasuring" his victim. Precisely the same sentiment expressed by those who believe the American Indians should thank the Whites
for "civilising" them.
Phoebe S,
"Washington gets no thanks for from the 150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in."
That might mean they don't want you there. Just saying.
ProRussiaPole
None of these wars are working out for the US strategically. All they do is sow chaos. They seem to not be gaining anything,
and are just preventing others from gaining anything as well.
Ernie For -> ProRussiaPole
i am a huge Putin fan, so is big Don. Please change your source of info Jerome, Trump is one man against Billions of people
and dollars in corruption. He has achieved more in the USA in 2 years than all 5 previous parasites together.
Truthbetold69
It could be a change for a better direction. Time will tell. 'If you do what you've always been doing, you'll get what you've
always been getting.'
"... Now consider the notion of "anti-Semitism." Google searches for that word and its close variants reveal over 24 million hits, and over the years I'm sure I've seen that term tens of thousands of times in my books and newspapers, and heard it endlessly reported in my electronic media and entertainment. But thinking it over, I'm not sure that I can ever recall a single real-life instance I've personally encountered, nor have I heard of almost any such cases from my friends or acquaintances. Indeed, the only persons I've ever come across making such claims were individuals who bore unmistakable signs of serious psychological imbalance. When the daily newspapers are brimming with lurid tales of hideous demons walking among us and attacking people on every street corner, but you yourself have never actually seen one, you may gradually grow suspicious. ..."
"... It has also become apparent that a considerable fraction of what passes for "anti-Semitism" these days seems to stretch that term beyond all recognition. A few weeks ago an unknown 28-year-old Democratic Socialist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scored a stunning upset primary victory over a top House Democrat in New York City, and naturally received a blizzard of media coverage as a result. However, when it came out that she had denounced the Israeli government for its recent massacre of over 140 unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza, cries of "anti-Semite" soon appeared, and according to Google there are now over 180,000 such hits combining her name and that harsh accusatory term. Similarly, just a few days ago the New York Times ran a major story reporting that all of Britain's Jewish newspapers had issued an "unprecedented" denunciation of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, describing it as an "existential threat" to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitism it was fostering; but this apparently amounted to nothing more than its willingness to sharply criticize the Israeli government for its long mistreatment of the Palestinians. ..."
I recently published a couple of long essays, and although they primarily focused on other
matters, the subject of anti-Semitism was a strong secondary theme. In that regard, I mentioned
my shock at discovering a dozen or more years ago that several of the most self-evidently
absurd elements of anti-Semitic lunacy, which I had always dismissed without consideration,
were probably correct. It does seem likely that a significant number of traditionally-religious
Jews did indeed occasionally commit the ritual murder of
Christian children in order to use their blood in certain religious ceremonies, and also
that powerful Jewish international bankers did play a large
role in financing the establishment of Bolshevik Russia .
When one discovers that matters of such enormous moment not only apparently occurred but
that they had been successfully excluded from nearly all of our histories and media coverage
for most of the last one hundred years, the implications take some time to properly digest. If
the most extreme "anti-Semitic canards" were probably true, then surely the whole notion of
anti-Semitism warrants a careful reexamination.
All of us obtain our knowledge of the world by two different channels. Some things we
discover from our own personal experiences and the direct evidence of our senses, but most
information comes to us via external sources such as books and the media, and a crisis may
develop when we discover that these two pathways are in sharp conflict. The official media of
the old USSR used to endlessly trumpet the tremendous achievements of its collectivized
agricultural system, but when citizens noticed that there was never any meat in their shops,
"Pravda" became a watchword for "Lies" rather than "Truth."
Now consider the notion of "anti-Semitism." Google searches for that word and its close
variants reveal over 24 million hits, and over the years I'm sure I've seen that term tens of
thousands of times in my books and newspapers, and heard it endlessly reported in my electronic
media and entertainment. But thinking it over, I'm not sure that I can ever recall a single
real-life instance I've personally encountered, nor have I heard of almost any such cases from
my friends or acquaintances. Indeed, the only persons I've ever come across making such claims
were individuals who bore unmistakable signs of serious psychological imbalance. When the daily
newspapers are brimming with lurid tales of hideous demons walking among us and attacking
people on every street corner, but you yourself have never actually seen one, you may gradually
grow suspicious.
Indeed, over the years some of my own research has uncovered a sharp contrast between image
and reality. As recently as the late 1990s, leading mainstream media outlets such as The
New York Times were still denouncing a top Ivy League
school such as Princeton for the supposed anti-Semitism of its college admissions policy,
but a few years ago when I carefully investigated that issue in quantitative terms for my
lengthy Meritocracy
analysis I was very surprised to reach a polar-opposite conclusion. According to the best
available evidence, white Gentiles were over 90% less likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the
other Ivies than were Jews of similar academic performance, a truly remarkable finding. If the
situation had been reversed and Jews were 90% less likely to be found at Harvard than seemed
warranted by their test scores, surely that fact would be endlessly cited as the absolute
smoking-gun proof of horrendous anti-Semitism in present-day America.
It has also become apparent that a considerable fraction of what passes for "anti-Semitism"
these days seems to stretch that term beyond all recognition. A few weeks ago an unknown
28-year-old Democratic Socialist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scored a stunning upset primary
victory over a top House Democrat in New York City, and naturally received a blizzard of media
coverage as a result. However, when it came out that she had denounced the Israeli government
for its recent massacre of over 140 unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza, cries of
"anti-Semite" soon appeared, and according to Google there are now over 180,000 such hits
combining her name and that harsh accusatory term. Similarly, just a few days ago the New
York Times ran a
major story reporting that all of Britain's Jewish newspapers had issued an "unprecedented"
denunciation of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, describing it as an "existential threat" to the
Jewish community for the anti-Semitism it was fostering; but this apparently amounted to
nothing more than its willingness to sharply criticize the Israeli government for its long
mistreatment of the Palestinians.
One plausible explanation of the strange contrast between media coverage and reality might
be that anti-Semitism once did loom very large in real life, but dissipated many decades ago,
while the organizations and activists focused on detecting and combating that pernicious
problem have remained in place, generating public attention based on smaller and smaller
issues, with the zealous Jewish activists of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) representing a
perfect example of this situation. As an even more striking illustration, the Second World War
ended over seventy years ago, but what historian Norman Finkelstein has so aptly labeled "the
Holocaust Industry" has grown ever larger and more entrenched in our academic and media worlds
so that scarcely a day passes without one or more articles relating to that topic appearing in
my major morning newspapers. Given this situation, a serious exploration of the true nature of
anti-Semitism should probably avoid the mere media phantoms of today and focus on the past,
when the condition might still have been widespread in daily life.
Many observers have pointed to the aftermath of the Second World War as marking a huge
watershed in the public acceptability of anti-Semitism both in America and Europe, so perhaps a
proper appraisal of that cultural phenomenon should focus on the years before that global
conflict. However, the overwhelming role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and other bloody
Communist seizures of power quite naturally made them objects of considerable fear and hatred
throughout the inter-war years, so the safest course might be to push that boundary back a
little further and confine our attention to the period prior to the outbreak of the First World
War. The pogroms in Czarist Russia, the Dreyfus Affair in France, and the lynching of Leo Frank
in the American South come to mind as some of the most famous examples from that period.
Lindemann's discussion of the often difficult relations between Russia's restive Jewish
minority and its huge Slavic majority is also quite interesting, and he provides numerous
instances in which major incidents, supposedly demonstrating the enormously strong appeal of
vicious anti-Semitism, were quite different than has been suggested by the legend. The famous
Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 was obviously the result of severe ethnic tension in that city, but
contrary to the regular accusations of later writers, there seems absolutely no evidence of
high-level government involvement, and the widespread claims of 700 dead that so horrified the
entire world were grossly exaggerated, with only 45 killed in the urban rioting. Chaim
Weizmann, the future president of Israel, later promoted the story that he himself and some
other brave Jewish souls had personally defended their people with revolvers in hand even as
they saw the mutilated bodies of 80 Jewish victims. This account was totally fictional since
Weizmann happened to have been be hundreds of miles away when the riots occurred.
Although a tendency to lie and exaggerate was hardly unique to the political partisans of
Russian Jewry, the existence of a powerful international network of Jewish journalists and
Jewish-influenced media outlets ensured that such concocted propaganda stories might receive
enormous worldwide distribution, while the truth followed far behind, if at all.
For related reasons, international outrage was often focused on the legal confinement of
most of Russia's Jews to the "Pale of Settlement," suggesting some sort of tight imprisonment;
but that area was the traditional home of the Jewish population and encompassed a landmass
almost as large as France and Spain combined. The growing impoverishment of Eastern European
Jews during that era was often assumed to be a consequence of hostile government policy, but
the obvious explanation was extraordinary Jewish fecundity, which far outstripped that of their
Slavic fellow countrymen, and quickly led them to outgrow the available spots in any of their
traditional "middleman" occupations, a situation worsened by their total disinclination to
engage in agriculture or other primary-producer activities. Jewish communities expressed horror
at the risk of losing their sons to the Czarist military draft, but this was simply the
flip-side of the full Russian citizenship they had been granted, and no different from what was
faced by their non-Jewish neighbors.
Certainly the Jews of Russia suffered greatly from widespread riots and mob attacks in the
generation prior to World War I, and these did sometimes have substantial government
encouragement, especially in the aftermath of the very heavy Jewish role in the 1905
Revolution. But we should keep in mind that a Jewish plotter had been implicated in the killing
of Czar Alexander II, and Jewish assassins had also struck down several top Russian ministers
and numerous other government officials. If the last decade or two had seen American Muslims
assassinate a sitting U.S. President, various leading Cabinet members, and a host of our other
elected and appointed officials, surely the position of Muslims in this country would have
become a very uncomfortable one.
As Lindemann candidly describes the tension between Russia's very rapidly growing Jewish
population and its governing authorities, he cannot avoid mentioning the notorious Jewish
reputation for bribery, corruption, and general dishonesty, with numerous figures of all
political backgrounds noting that the remarkable Jewish propensity to commit perjury in the
courtroom led to severe problems in the effective administration of justice. The eminent
American sociologist E.A. Ross, writing in 1913, characterized
the regular behavior of Eastern European Jews in very similar terms .
Lindemann also allocates a short chapter to discussing the 1911 Beilis Affair, in which a
Ukrainian Jew was accused of the ritual murder of a young Gentile boy, an incident that
generated a great deal of international attention and controversy. Based on the evidence
presented, the defendant seems likely to have been innocent, although the obvious lies he
repeatedly told police interrogators hardly helped foster that impression, and "the system
worked" in that he was ultimately found innocent by the jurors at his trial. However, a few
pages are also given to a much less well-known ritual murder case in late 19th century Hungary,
in which the evidence of Jewish guilt seemed far stronger, though the author hardly accepted
the possible reality of such an outlandish crime. Such reticence was quite understandable since
the publication of Ariel Toaff's remarkable volume
on the subject was still a dozen years in the future.
Lindemann subsequently expanded his examination of historical anti-Semitism into a much
broader treatment, Esau's Tears , which appeared in 1997. In this volume, he added
comparative studies of the social landscape in Germany, Britain, Italy, and several other
European countries, and demonstrated that the relationship between Jews and non-Jews varied
greatly across different locations and time periods. But although I found his analysis quite
useful and interesting, the extraordinarily harsh attacks his text provoked from some outraged
Jewish academics seemed even more intriguing.
For example, Judith Laikin Elkin opened her discussion in The American Historical
Review by describing the book as a "545-page polemic" a strange characterization of a book
so remarkably even-handed and factually-based in its scholarship. Writing in
Commentary , Robert Wistrich was even harsher, stating that merely reading the book
had been a painful experience for him, and his review seemed filled with spittle-flecked rage.
Unless these individuals had somehow gotten copies of a different book, I found their attitudes
simply astonishing.
I was not alone in such a reaction. Richard S. Levy of the University of Illinois, a noted
scholar of anti-Semitism, expressed amazement at Wistrich's seemingly irrational outburst,
while Paul Gottfried, writing in Chronicles , mildly suggested that Lindemann had
"touched raw nerves." Indeed, Gottfried's own evaluation quite reasonably criticized Lindemann
for perhaps being a little too even-handed, sometimes presenting numerous conflicting analyzes
without choosing between them. For those interested, a good discussion of the book by Alan
Steinweis, a younger scholar specializing in the same topic,
is conveniently available online .
The remarkable ferocity with which some Jewish writers attacked Lindemann's meticulous
attempt to provide an accurate history of anti-Semitism may carry more significance than merely
an exchange of angry words in low-circulation academic publications. If our mainstream media
shapes our reality, scholarly books and articles based upon them tend to set the contours of
that media coverage. And the ability of a relatively small number of agitated and energetic
Jews to police the acceptable boundaries of historical narratives may have enormous
consequences for our larger society, deterring scholars from objectively reporting historical
facts and preventing students from discovering them.
The undeniable truth is that for many centuries Jews usually constituted a wealthy and
privileged segment of the population in nearly all the European countries in which they
resided, and quite frequently they based their livelihood upon the heavy exploitation of a
downtrodden peasantry. Even without any differences in ethnicity, language, or religion, such
conditions almost invariably provoke hostility. The victory of Mao's Communist forces in China
was quickly followed by the brutal massacre of a million or more Han Chinese landlords by the
Han Chinese poor peasants who regarded them as cruel oppressors, with William Hinton's classic
Fanshen describing the unfortunate history that unfolded in one particular village.
When similar circumstances led to violent clashes in Eastern Europe between Slavs and Jews,
does it really make logical sense to employ a specialized term such as "anti-Semitism" to
describe that situation?
Furthermore, some of the material presented in Lindemann's rather innocuous text might also
lead to potentially threatening ideas. Consider, for example, the notorious Protocols of
the Learned Elders of Zion , almost certainly fictional, but hugely popular and
influential during the years following World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution. The fall of so
many longstanding Gentile dynasties and their replacement by new regimes such as Soviet Russia
and Weimar Germany, which were heavily dominated by their tiny Jewish minorities, quite
naturally fed suspicions of a worldwide Jewish plot, as did the widely discussed role of Jewish
international bankers in producing those political outcomes.
Over the decades, there has been much speculation about the possible inspiration for the
Protocols , but although Lindemann makes absolutely no reference to that document, he
does provide a very intriguing possible candidate. Jewish-born British Prime Minister Benjamin
Disraeli certainly ranked as one of the most influential figures of the late 19th century, and
in his novel Coningsby , he has the character representing Lord Lionel Rothschild
boast about the existence of a vast and
secret network of powerful international Jews , who stand near the head of almost every
major nation, quietly controlling their governments from behind the scenes. If one of the
world's most politically well-connected Jews eagerly promoted such notions, was Henry Ford
really so unreasonable in doing the same?
Lindemann also notes Disraeli's focus on the extreme importance of race and racial origins,
a central aspect of traditional Jewish religious doctrine. He reasonably suggests that this
must surely have had a huge influence upon the rise of those political ideas, given that
Disraeli's public profile and stature were so much greater than the mere writers or activists
whom our history books usually place at center stage. In fact, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a
leading racial theorist, actually cited Disraeli as a key source for his ideas. Jewish
intellectuals such as Max Nordau and Cesare Lombroso are already widely recognized as leading
figures in the rise of the racial science of that era, but Disraeli's under-appreciated role
may have actually been far greater. The deep Jewish roots of European racialist movements are
hardly something that many present-day Jews would want widely known.
One of the harsh Jewish critics of Esau's Tears denounced Cambridge University
Press for even allowing the book to appear in print, and although that major work is easily
available in English, there are numerous other cases where an important but discordant version
of historical reality has been successfully blocked from publication. For decades most
Americans would have ranked Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn as among the world's greatest
literary figures, and his Gulag Archipelago alone sold over 10 million copies. But his
last work was a massive two-volume account of the tragic 200 years of shared history between
Russians and Jews, and despite its 2002 release in Russian and numerous other world languages,
there has yet to be an authorized English translation, though various partial editions have
circulated on the Internet in samizdat form.
ORDER IT NOW
At one point, a full English version was briefly available for sale at Amazon.com and I
purchased it. Glancing through a few sections, the work seemed quite even-handed and innocuous
to me, but it seemed to provide a far more detailed and uncensored account than anything else
previously available, which obviously was the problem. The Bolshevik Revolution resulted in the
deaths of many tens of millions of people worldwide, and the overwhelming Jewish role in its
leadership would become more difficult to erase from historical memory if Solzhenitsyn's work
were easily available. Also, his candid discussion of the economic and political behavior of
Russian Jewry in pre-revolutionary times directly conflicted with the hagiography widely
promoted by Hollywood and the popular media. Historian Yuri Slezkine's award-winning 2004 book
The Jewish Century provided many similar facts, but his treatment was far more cursory
and his public stature not remotely the same.
Near the end of his life, Solzhenitsyn gave his political blessing to Russian President
Vladimir Putin, and Russia's leaders honored him upon his death, while his Gulag
volumes are now enshrined as mandatory reading in the standard high school curriculum of
today's overwhelmingly Christian Russia. But even as his star rose again in his own homeland,
it seems to have sharply fallen in our own country, and his trajectory may eventually relegate
him to nearly un-person status.
A couple of years after the release of Solzhenitsyn's controversial final book, an American
writer named Anne Applebaum published a thick history bearing the same title Gulag ,
and her work received enormously favorable media coverage and won her a Pulitzer Prize; I have
even heard claims that her book has been steadily replacing that earlier Gulag on many
college reading lists. But although Jews constituted a huge fraction of the top leadership of
the Soviet Gulag system during its early decades, as well as that of the dreaded NKVD which
supplied the inmates, nearly her entire focus on her own ethnic group during Soviet times is
that of victims rather than victimizers. And by a remarkable irony of fate, she shares a last
name with one of the top Bolshevik leaders, Hirsch Apfelbaum, who concealed his own ethnic
identity by calling himself Grigory Zinoviev.
ORDER IT NOW
The striking decline in Solzhenitsyn's literary status in the West came just a decade or two
after an even more
precipitous collapse in the reputation of David Irving , and for much the same reason.
Irving probably ranked as the most internationally successful British historian of the last one
hundred years and a renowned scholar of World War II, but his extensive reliance on primary
source documentary evidence posed an obvious threat to the official narrative promoted by
Hollywood and wartime propaganda. When he published his magisterial Hitler's War ,
this conflict between myth and reality came into the open, and an enormous wave of attacks and
vilification was unleashed, gradually leading to his purge from respectability and eventually
even his imprisonment.
These important examples may help to explain the puzzling contrast between the behavior of
Jews in the aggregate and Jews as individuals. Observers have noticed that even fairly small
Jewish minorities may often have a major impact upon the far larger societies that host them.
But on the other hand, in my experience at least, a large majority of individual Jews do not
seem all that different in their personalities or behavior than their non-Jewish counterparts.
So how does a community whose individual mean is not so unusual generate what seems to be such
a striking difference in collective behavior? I think the answer may involve the existence of
information choke-points, and the ability of relatively small numbers of particularly zealous
and agitated Jews in influencing and controlling these.
We live our lives constantly immersed in media narratives, and these allow us to decide the
rights and wrongs of a situation. The vast majority of people, Jew and Gentile alike, are far
more likely to take strong action if they are convinced that their cause is a just one. This is
obviously the basis for war-time propaganda.
Now suppose that a relatively small number of zealous Jewish partisans are known to always
attack and denounce journalists or authors who accurately describe Jewish misbehavior. Over
time, this ongoing campaign of intimidation may cause many important facts to be left on the
cutting-room floor, or even gradually expel from mainstream respectability those writers who
refuse to conform to such pressures. Meanwhile, similar small numbers of Jewish partisans
frequently exaggerate the misdeeds committed against Jews, sometimes piling their exaggerations
upon past exaggerations already produced by a previous round of such zealots.
Eventually, these two combined trends may take a complex and possibly very mixed historical
record and transform it into a simple morality-play, with innocent Jews tremendously injured by
vicious Jew-haters. And as this morality-play becomes established it deepens the subsequent
intensity of other Jewish-activists, who redouble their demands that the media "stop vilifying
Jews" and covering up the supposed evils inflicted upon them. An unfortunate circle of
distortion following exaggeration following distortion can eventually produce a widely accepted
historical account that bears little resemblance to the reality of what actually happened.
So as a result, the vast majority of quite ordinary Jews, who would normally behave in quite
ordinary ways, are misled by this largely fictional history, and rather understandably become
greatly outraged at all the horrible things that had been done to their suffering people, some
of which are true and some of which are not, while remaining completely ignorant of the other
side of the ledger.
Furthermore, this situation is exacerbated by the common tendency of Jews to "cluster"
together, perhaps respresenting just one or two percent of the total population, but often
constituting 20% or 40% or 60% of their immediate peer-group, especially in certain
professions. Under such conditions, the ideas or emotional agitation of some Jews probably
permeates others around them, often provoking additional waves of indignation.
As a rough analogy, a small quantity of uranium is relatively inert and harmless, and
entirely so if distributed within low-density ore. But if a significant quantity of
weapons-grade uranium is sufficiently compressed, then the neutrons released by fissioning
atoms will quickly cause additional atoms to undergo fission, with the ultimate result of that
critical chain-reaction being a nuclear explosion. In similar fashion, even a highly agitated
Jew may have no negative impact, but if the collection of such agitated Jews becomes too
numerous and clusters together too closely, they may work each other into a terrible frenzy,
perhaps with disastrous consequences both for themselves and for their larger society. This is
especially true if those agitated Jews begin to dominate certain key nodes of top-level
control, such as the central political or media organs of a society.
Whereas most living organizations exist solely in physical reality, human beings also occupy
an ideational space, with the interaction of human consciousness and perceived reality playing
a major role in shaping behavior. Just as the pheromones released by mammals or insects can
drastically affect the reactions of their family members or nest-mates, the ideas secreted by
individuals or the media-emitters of a society can have an enormous impact upon their
fellows.
A cohesive, organized group generally possesses huge advantages over a teeming mass of
atomized individuals, just as a Macedonian Phalanx could easily defeat a vastly larger body of
disorganized infantry. Many years ago, on some website somewhere I came across a very
insightful comment regarding the obvious connection between "anti-Semitism" and "racism," which
our mainstream media organs identify as two of the world's greatest evils. Under this analysis,
"anti-Semitism" represents the tendency to criticize or resist Jewish social cohesion, while
"racism" represents the attempt of white Gentiles to maintain a similar social cohesion of
their own. To the extent that the ideological emanations from our centralized media organs
serve to strengthen and protect Jewish cohesion while attacking and dissolving any similar
cohesion on the part of their Gentile counterparts, the former will obviously gain enormous
advantages in resource-competition against the latter.
Religion obviously constitutes an important unifying factor in human social groups and we
cannot ignore the role of Judaism in this regard. Traditional Jewish
religious doctrine seems to consider Jews as being in a state of permanent hostility with all
non-Jews , and the use of dishonest propaganda is an almost inevitable aspect of such
conflict. Furthermore, since Jews have invariably been a small political minority, maintaining
such controversial tenets required the employment of a massive framework of subterfuge and
dissimulation in order to conceal their nature from the larger society surrounding them. It has
often been said that truth is the first casualty in war, and surely the cultural influences of
over a thousand years of such intense religious hostility may continue to quietly influence the
thinking of many modern Jews, even those who have largely abandoned their religious
beliefs.
The notorious Jewish tendency to shamelessly lie or wildly exaggerate has sometimes had
horrifying human consequences. I very recently discovered a fascinating passage in Peter
Moreira's 2014 book The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War ,
focused on the important political role of that powerful Secretary of the Treasury.
A turning point in Henry Morgenthau Jr.'s relationship with the Jewish community came in
November 1942, when Rabbi Stephen Wise came to the corner office to tell the secretary what
was happening in Europe. Morgenthau knew of the millions of deaths and the lampshades made
from victims' skin, and he asked Wise not to go into excessive details. But Wise went on to
tell of the barbarity of the Nazis, how they were making soap out of Jewish flesh.
Morgenthau, turning paler, implored him, "Please, Stephen, don't give me the gory details."
Wise went on with his list of horrors and Morgenthau repeated his plea over and over again.
Henrietta Klotz was afraid her boss would keel over. Morgenthau later said the meeting
changed his life.
You could help yourself by learning the real history ..I suggest the foremost historian on
the subject Thomas Thompson and his ' History of Arabia'. Jerusalem was not founded by Jews,
i.e. adherents of the Jewish religion. It was founded between 3000 BCE and 2600 BCE by a West
Semitic people or possibly the Canaanites, the common ancestors of Palestinians, Lebanese,
many Syrians and Jordanians, and many Jews. But when it was founded Jews did not
exist.
Jerusalem was founded in honor of the ancient god Shalem. It does not mean City of
Peace but rather 'built-up place of Shalem." The "Jewish people" were not building Jerusalem
3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a
religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a
late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has
been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE. There was no invasion of geographical
Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much
earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II
on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the
Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and
Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside
Palestine. Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent "Jewish
people" in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history.
Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates
for the united kingdom under David and Solomon. So Jerusalem was not 'the city of David,'
since there was no city when he is said to have lived. No sign of magnificent palaces or
great states has been found in the archeology of this period, and the Assyrian tablets, which
recorded even minor events throughout the Middle East, such as the actions of Arab queens,
don't know about any great kingdom of David and Solomon in geographical Palestine. Since
archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First
Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem
except for the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians
took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the
Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in
the 330s BCE. Alexander's descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when
Alexander's other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168
BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II
Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian
dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine
in 6 CE (CE= 'Common Era' or what Christians call AD). The Romans and then the Eastern Roman
Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire
Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.
A. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it over 1191 years.
B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal state for several hundred years in the second
millennium BCE.
C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450
CE.
D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years under the Achaemenids, for three years under the
Parthians (insofar as the last Hasmonean was actually their vassal), and for 15 years under
the Sasanids.
E. The Greeks, who ruled it for over 160 years if we count the Ptolemys and Seleucids as
Greek. If we count them as Egyptians and Syrians, that would increase the Egyptian claim and
introduce a Syrian one.
F. The successor states to the Byzantines, which could be either Greece or Turkey, who ruled
it 188 years, though if we consider the heir to be Greece and add in the time the Hellenistic
Greek dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem.
G. There is an Iraqi claim to Jerusalem based on the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, as
well as perhaps the rule of the Ayyubids (Saladin's dynasty), who were Kurds from Iraq.
I understand what you are saying, Jilles, but let's be accurate, shall we?
The Jews have ZERO right to "return" to Palestine one cannot go back to a place one never
left in the first place.
The story that the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine 2000 years ago is FALSE.
See Israeli historian Shlomo Sand( the invention of the Jewish people).
At any rate, even had the story been true – and it is NOT – the notion of
modern Jews laying claim to the land 2000 years later is truly bizarre.
In short, today's Palestinians and their ancestors have been living continuously between
the River and the Sea for about 9,000 years."
Exactly.
In the preface of his book "Ten myths about Israel", Israeli historian Ilan Pappe,
writes:
Were the Jews indeed the original inhabitants of Palestine who deserved to be
supported in every way possible in their "return" to their "homeland"? The myth insists
that the Jews who arrived in 1882 were the descendants of the Jews expelled by the Romans
around 70 CE. The counterargument questions this genealogical connection. Quite a hefty
scholarly effort has shown that the Jews of Roman Palestine remained on the land and were
first converted to Christianity and then to Islam. Who these Jews were is still an open
question -- maybe the Khazars who converted to Judaism in the ninth century; or maybe the
mixture of races across a millennium precludes any answer to such a question.
Junk author, junk book of the butcher of Yugoslavia who would be hanged with Bill clinton by
Nuremberg Tribunal for crimes against peace. Albright is not bright at all. she a female bully
and that shows.
Mostly projection. And this arrogant warmonger like to exercise in Russophobia (which was the
main part of the USSR which saved the world fro fascism, sacrificing around 20 million people)
This book is book of denial of genocide against Iraqis and Serbian population where bombing with
uranium enriched bombs doubled cancer cases.If you can pass over those facts that this book is
for you.
Like Robert Kagan and other neocons Albright is waiving authoritarism dead chicken again and
again. that's silly and disingenuous. authoritarism is a method of Governance used in military.
It is not an ideology. Fascism is an ideology, a flavor of far right nationalism. Kind of
"enhanced" by some socialist ideas far right nationalism.
The view of fascism without economic circumstances that create fascism, and first of
immiseration of middle and working class and high level of unemployment is a primitive
ahistorical view. Fascism is the ultimate capitalist statism acting simultaneously as the civil
religion for the population also enforced by the power of the state. It has a lot of common with
neoliberalism, that's why neoliberalism is sometimes called "inverted totalitarism".
In reality fascism while remaining the dictatorship of capitalists for capitalist and the
national part of financial oligarchy, it like neoliberalism directed against working class
fascism comes to power on the populist slogans of righting wrong by previous regime and kicking
foreign capitalists and national compradors (which in Germany turned to be mostly Jewish)
out.
It comes to power under the slogans of stopping the distribution of wealth up and elimination
of the class of reinters -- all citizens should earn income, not get it from bond and other
investments (often in reality doing completely the opposite).
While intrinsically connected and financed by a sizable part of national elite which often
consist of far right military leadership, a part of financial oligarchy and large part of lower
middle class (small properties) is is a protest movement which want to revenge for the
humiliation and prefer military style organization of the society to democracy as more potent
weapon to achieve this goal.
Like any far right movement the rise of fascism and neo-fascism is a sign of internal problem
within a given society, often a threat to the state or social order.
Still another noted that Fascism is often linked to people who are part of a distinct ethnic
or racial group, who are under economic stress, and who feel that they are being denied rewards
to which they are entitled. "It's not so much what people have." she said, "but what they think
they should have -- and what they fear." Fear is why Fascism's emotional reach can extend to
all levels of society. No political movement can flourish without popular support, but Fascism
is as dependent on the wealthy and powerful as it is on the man or woman in the street -- on
those who have much to lose and those who have nothing at all.
This insight made us think that Fascism should perhaps be viewed less as a political
ideology than as a means for seizing and holding power. For example, Italy in the 1920s
included self-described Fascists of the left (who advocated a dictatorship of the
dispossessed), of the right (who argued for an authoritarian corporatist state), and of the
center (who sought a return to absolute monarchy). The German National Socialist Party (the
Nazis) originally came together ar ound a list of demands that ca- tered to anti-Semites,
anti-immigrants, and anti-capitalists but also advocated for higher old-age pensions, more
educational op- portunities for the poor, an end to child labor, and improved ma- ternal health
care. The Nazis were racists and, in their own minds, reformers at the same time.
If Fascism concerns itself less with specific policies than with finding a pathway to power,
what about the tactics of lead- ership? My students remarked that the Fascist chiefs we remem-
ber best were charismatic. Through one method or another, each established an emotional link to
the crowd and, like the central figure in a cult, brought deep and often ugly feelings to the
sur- face. This is how the tentacles of Fascism spread inside a democ- racy. Unlike a monarchy
or a military dictatorship imposed on society from above. Fascism draws energy from men and
women who are upset because of a lost war, a lost job, a memory of hu- miliation, or a sense
that their country is in steep decline. The more painful the grounds for resentment, the easier
it is for a Fascist leader to gam followers by dangling the prospect of re- newal or by vowing
to take back what has been stolen.
Like the mobilizers of more benign movements, these secular evangelists exploit the
near-universal human desire to be part of a meaningful quest. The more gifted among them have
an apti- tude for spectacle -- for orchestrating mass gatherings complete with martial music,
incendiary rhetoric, loud cheers, and arm-
lifting salutes. To loyalists, they offer the prize of membership in a club from which
others, often the objects of ridicule, are kept out. To build fervor, Fascists tend to be
aggressive, militaristic, and -- when circumstances allow -- expansionist. To secure the
future, they turn schools into seminaries for true believers, striv- ing to produce "new men"
and "new women" who will obey without question or pause. And, as one of my students observed,
"a Fascist who launches his career by being voted into office will have a claim to legitimacy
that others do not."
After climbing into a position of power, what comes next: How does a Fascist consolidate
authority? Here several students piped up: "By controlling information." Added another, "And
that's one reason we have so much cause to worry today." Most of us have thought of the
technological revolution primarily as a means for people from different walks of life to
connect with one another, trade ideas, and develop a keener understanding of why men and women
act as they do -- in other words, to sharpen our perceptions of truth. That's still the case,
but now we are not so sure. There is a troubling "Big Brother" angle because of the mountain of
personal data being uploaded into social media. If an advertiser can use that information to
home in on a consumer because of his or her individual interests, what's to stop a Fascist
government from doing the same? "Suppose I go to a demonstra- tion like the Women's March,"
said a student, "and post a photo
on social media. My name gets added to a list and that list can end up anywhere. How do we
protect ourselves against that?"
Even more disturbing is the ability shown by rogue regimes and their agents to spread lies
on phony websites and Facebook. Further, technology has made it possible for extremist
organiza- tions to construct echo chambers of support for conspiracy theo- ries, false
narratives, and ignorant views on religion and race. This is the first rule of deception:
repeated often enough, almost any statement, story, or smear can start to sound plausible. The
Internet should be an ally of freedom and a gateway to knowledge; in some cases, it is
neither.
Historian Robert Paxton begins one of his books by assert- ing: "Fascism was the major
political innovation of the twentieth century, and the source of much of its pain." Over the
years, he and other scholars have developed lists of the many moving parts that Fascism
entails. Toward the end of our discussion, my class sought to articulate a comparable list.
Fascism, most of the students agreed, is an extreme form of authoritarian rule. Citizens are
required to do exactly what lead- ers say they must do, nothing more, nothing less. The
doctrine is linked to rabid nationalism. It also turns the traditional social contract upside
down. Instead of citizens giving power to the state in exchange for the protection of their
rights, power begins with the leader, and the people have no rights. Under Fascism,
the mission of citizens is to serve; the government's job is to rule.
When one talks about this subject, confusion often arises about the difference between
Fascism and such related concepts as totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, tyranny,
autocracy, and so on. As an academic, I might be tempted to wander into that thicket, but as a
former diplomat, I am primarily concerned with actions, not labels. To my mind, a Fascist is
someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is
unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary --
including violence -- to achieve his or her goals. In that conception, a Fascist will likely be
a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist.
Often the difference can be seen in who is trusted with the guns. In seventeenth-century
Europe, when Catholic aristocrats did battle with Protestant aristocrats, they fought over
scripture but agreed not to distribute weapons to their peasants, thinking it safer to wage war
with mercenary armies. Modern dictators also tend to be wary of their citizens, which is why
they create royal guards and other elite security units to ensure their personal safe- ty. A
Fascist, however, expects the crowd to have his back. Where kings try to settle people down,
Fascists stir them up so that when the fighting begins, their foot soldiers have the will and
the firepower to strike first.
Hypocrisy at its worst from a lady who advocated hawkish foreign policy which included the
most sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam, when, in 1998, Clinton began almost daily
attacks on Iraq in the so-called no-fly zones, and made so-called regime change in Iraq
official U.S. policy.
In May of 1996, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Madeleine Albright, who at the time was
Clinton's U.N. ambassador. Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, in connection with
the Clinton administration presiding over the most devastating regime of sanctions in history
that the U.N. estimated took the lives of as many as a million Iraqis, the vast majority of
them children. , "We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that's more
children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and, you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think
the price is worth it.
While I found much of the story-telling in "Fascism" engaging, I come away expecting much
more of one of our nation's pre-eminent senior diplomats . In a nutshell, she has devoted a
whole volume to describing the ascent of intolerant fascism and its many faces, but punted on
the question "How should we thwart fascism going forward?"
Even that question leaves me a bit unsatisfied, since it is couched in double-negative
syntax. The thing there is an appetite for, among the readers of this book who are looking
for more than hand-wringing about neofascism, is a unifying title or phrase which captures in
single-positive syntax that which Albright prefers over fascism. What would that be? And, how
do we pursue it, nurture it, spread it and secure it going forward? What is it?
I think Albright would perhaps be willing to rally around "Good Government" as the theme
her book skirts tangentially from the dark periphery of fascistic government. "Virtuous
Government"? "Effective Government"? "Responsive Government"?
People concerned about neofascism want to know what we should be doing right now to avoid
getting sidetracked into a dark alley of future history comparable to the Nazi brown shirt or
Mussolini black shirt epochs. Does Albright present a comprehensive enough understanding of
fascism to instruct on how best to avoid it? Or, is this just another hand-wringing exercise,
a la "you'll know it when you see it", with a proactive superficiality stuck at the level of
pejorative labelling of current styles of government and national leaders? If all you can say
is what you don't want, then the challenge of threading the political future of the US is
left unruddered. To make an analogy to driving a car, if you don't know your destination, and
only can get navigational prompts such as "don't turn here" or "don't go down that street",
then what are the chances of arriving at a purposive destination?
The other part of this book I find off-putting is that Albright, though having served as
Secretary of State, never talks about the heavy burden of responsibility that falls on a head
of state. She doesn't seem to empathize at all with the challenge of top leadership. Her
perspective is that of the detached critic. For instance, in discussing President Duterte of
the Philippines, she fails to paint the dire situation under which he rose to national
leadership responsibility: Islamic separatists having violently taken over the entire city of
Marawi, nor the ubiquitous spread of drug cartel power to the level where control over law
enforcement was already ceded to the gangs in many places...entire islands and city
neighborhoods run by mafia organizations. It's easy to sit back and criticize Duterte's
unleashing of vigilante justice -- What was Mrs. Albright's better alternative to regain
ground from vicious, well-armed criminal organizations? The distancing from leadership
responsibility makes Albright's treatment of the Philippines twin crises of gang-rule and
Islamist revolutionaries seem like so much academic navel-gazing....OK for an undergrad
course at Georgetown maybe, but unworthy of someone who served in a position of high
responsibility. Duterte is liked in the Philippines. What he did snapped back the power of
the cartels, and returned a deserved sense of security to average Philippinos (at least those
not involved with narcotics). Is that not good government, given the horrendous circumstances
Duterte came up to deal with? What lack of responsibility in former Philippine leadership
allowed things to get so out of control? Is it possible that Democrats and liberals are
afraid to be tough, when toughness is what is needed? I'd much rather read an account from an
average Philippino about the positive impacts of the vigilante campaign, than listen of
Madame Secretary sermonizing out of context about Duterte. OK, he's not your idea of a nice
guy. Would you rather sit back, prattle on about the rule of law and due process while
Islamic terrorists wrest control over where you live? Would you prefer the leadership of a
drug cartel boss to Duterte?
My critique is offered in a constructive manner. I would certainly encourage Albright (or
anyone!) to write a book in a positive voice about what it's going to take to have good
national government in the US going forward, and to help spread such abundance globally. I
would define "good" as the capability to make consistently good policy decisions, ones that
continue to look good in hindsight, 10, 20 or 30 years later. What does that take?
I would submit that the essential "preserving democracy" process component is having a
population that is adequately prepared for collaborative problem-solving. Some understanding
of history is helpful, but it's simply not enough. Much more essential is for every young
person to experience team problem-solving, in both its cooperative and competitive aspects.
Every young person needs to experience a team leadership role, and to appreciate what it
takes from leaders to forge constructive design from competing ideas and champions. Only
after serving as a referee will a young person understand the limits to "passion" that
individual contributors should bring to the party. Only after moderating and herding cats
will a young person know how to interact productively with leaders and other contributors.
Much of the skill is counter-instinctual. It's knowing how to express ideas...how to field
criticism....how to nudge people along in the desired direction...and how to avoid ad-hominem
attacks, exaggerations, accusations and speculative grievances. It's learning how to manage
conflict productively toward excellence. Way too few of our young people are learning these
skills, and way too few of our journalists know how to play a constructive role in managing
communications toward successful complex problem-solving. Albright's claim that a
journalist's job is primarily to "hold leaders accountable" really betrays an absolving of
responsibility for the media as a partner in good government -- it doesn't say whether the
media are active players on the problem-solving team (which they have to be for success), or
mere spectators with no responsibility for the outcome. If the latter, then journalism
becomes an irritant, picking at the scabs over and over, but without any forward progress.
When the media takes up a stance as an "opponent" of leadership, you end up with poor
problem-solving results....the system is fighting itself instead of making forward
progress.
"Fascism" doesn't do nearly enough to promote the teaching of practical civics 101 skills,
not just to the kids going into public administration, but to everyone. For, it is in the
norms of civility, their ability to be practiced, and their defense against excesses, that
fascism (e.g., Antifa) is kept at bay.
Everyone in a democracy has to know the basics:
• when entering a disagreement, don't personalize it
• never demonize an opponent
• keep a focus on the goal of agreement and moving forward
• never tell another person what they think, but ask (non-rhetorically) what they think
then be prepared to listen and absorb
• do not speak untruths or exaggerate to make an argument
• do not speculate grievance
• understand truth gathering as a process; detect when certainty is being bluffed;
question sources
• recognize impasse and unproductive argumentation and STOP IT
• know how to introduce a referee or moderator to regain productive collaboration
• avoid ad hominem attacks
• don't take things personally that wrankle you;
• give the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation
• don't jump to conclusions
• don't reward theatrical manipulation
These basics of collaborative problem-solving are the guts of a "liberal democracy" that
can face down the most complex challenges and dilemmas.
I gave the book 3 stars for the great story-telling, and Albright has been part of a great
story of late 20th century history. If she would have told us how to prevent fascism going
forward, and how to roll it back in "hard case" countries like North Korea and Sudan, I would
have given her a 5. I'm not that interested in picking apart the failure cases of
history...they teach mostly negative exemplars. Much rather I would like to read about
positive exemplars of great national government -- "great" defined by popular acclaim, by the
actual ones governed. Where are we seeing that today? Canada? Australia? Interestingly, both
of these positive exemplars have strict immigration policies.
Is it possible that Albright is just unable, by virtue of her narrow escape from Communist
Czechoslovakia and acceptance in NYC as a transplant, to see that an optimum immigration
policy in the US, something like Canada's or Australia's, is not the looming face of fascism,
but rather a move to keep it safely in its corner in coming decades? At least, she admits to
her being biased by her life story.
That suggests her views on refugees and illegal immigrants as deserving of unlimited
rights to migrate into the US might be the kind of cloaked extremism that she is warning us
about.
Albright's book is a comprehensive look at recent history regarding the rise and fall of
fascist leaders; as well as detailing leaders in nations that are starting to mimic fascist
ideals. Instead of a neat definition, she uses examples to bolster her thesis of what are
essential aspects of fascism. Albright dedicates each section of the book to a leader or
regime that enforces fascist values and conveys this to the reader through historical events
and exposition while also peppering in details of her time as Secretary of State. The climax
(and 'warning'), comes at the end, where Albright applies what she has been discussing to the
current state of affairs in the US and abroad.
Overall, I would characterize this as an enjoyable and relatively easy read. I think the
biggest strength of this book is how Albright uses history, previous examples of leaders and
regimes, to demonstrate what fascism looks like and contributing factors on a national and
individual level. I appreciated that she lets these examples speak for themselves of the
dangers and subtleties of a fascist society, which made the book more fascinating and less of
a textbook. Her brief descriptions of her time as Secretary of State were intriguing and made
me more interested in her first book, 'Madame Secretary'. The book does seem a bit slow as it
is not until the end that Albright blatantly reveals the relevance of all of the history
relayed in the first couple hundred pages. The last few chapters are dedicated to the reveal:
the Trump administration and how it has affected global politics. Although, she never
outright calls Trump a fascist, instead letting the reader decide based on his decisions and
what you have read in the book leading up to this point, her stance is quite clear by the
end. I was surprised at what I shared politically with Albright, mainly in immigration and a
belief of empathy and understanding for others. However, I got a slight sense of
anti-secularism in the form of a disdain for those who do not subscribe to an Abrahamic
religion and she seemed to hint at this being partly an opening to fascism.
I also could have done without the both-sides-ism she would occasionally push, which seems
to be a tactic used to encourage people to 'unite against Trump'. These are small annoyances
I had with the book, my main critique is the view Albright takes on democracy. If anything,
the book should have been called "Democracy: the Answer" because that is the most consistent
stance Albright takes throughout. She seems to overlook many of the atrocities the US and
other nations have committed in the name of democracy and the negative consequences of
capitalism, instead, justifying negative actions with the excuse of 'it is for democracy and
everyone wants that' and criticizing those who criticize capitalism.
She does not do a good job of conveying the difference between a communist country like
Russia and a socialist country like those found in Scandinavia and seems okay with the idea
of the reader lumping them all together in a poor light. That being said, I would still
recommend this book for anyone's TBR as the message is essential for today, that the current
world of political affairs is, at least somewhat, teetering on a precipice and we are in need
of as many strong leaders as possible who are willing to uphold democratic ideals on the
world stage and mindful constituents who will vote them in.
The book is very well written, easy to read, and follows a pretty standard formula making
it accessible to the average reader. However, it suffers immensely from, what I suspect are,
deeply ingrained political biases from the author.
Whilst I don't dispute the criteria the author applies in defining fascism, or the targets
she cites as examples, the first bias creeps in here when one realises the examples chosen
are traditional easy targets for the US (with the exception of Turkey). The same criteria
would define a country like Singapore perfectly as fascist, yet the country (or Malaysia)
does not receive a mention in the book.
Further, it grossly glosses over what Ms. Albright terms facist traits from the US
governments of the past. If the author is to be believed, the CIA is holier than thou, never
intervened anywhere or did anything that wasn't with the best interests of democracy at
heart, and American foreign policy has always existed to build friendships and help out their
buddies. To someone ingrained in this rhetoric for years I am sure this is an easy pill to
swallow, but to the rest of the world it makes a number of assertions in the book come across
as incredibly naive. out of 5 stars
Trite and opaque
We went with my husband to the presentation of this book at UPenn with Albright before it
came out and Madeleine's spunk, wit and just glorious brightness almost blinded me. This is a
2.5 star book, because 81 year old author does not really tell you all there is to tell when
she opens up on a subject in any particular chapter, especially if it concerns current US
interest.
Lets start from the beginning of the book. What really stood out, the missing 3rd Germany
ally, Japan and its emperor. Hirohito (1901-1989) was emperor of Japan from 1926 until his
death in 1989. He took over at a time of rising democratic sentiment, but his country soon
turned toward ultra-nationalism and militarism. During World War II (1939-45), Japan attacked
nearly all of its Asian neighbors, allied itself with Nazi Germany and launched a surprise
assault on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, forcing US to enter the war in 1941. Hirohito
was never indicted as a war criminal! does he deserve at least a chapter in her book?
Oh and by the way, did author mention anything about sanctions against Germany for
invading Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland? Up until the Pearl Harbor USA and
Germany still traded, although in March 1939, FDR slapped a 25% tariff on all German goods.
Like Trump is doing right now to some of US trading partners.
Next monster that deserves a chapter on Genocide in cosmic proportions post WW2 is
communist leader of China Mao Zedung. Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural
history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic
torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants compares to the Second World
War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in
China over these four years; the total worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55
million.
We learn that Argentina has given sanctuary to Nazi war criminals, but she forgets to
mention that 88 Nazi scientists arrived in the United States in 1945 and were promptly put to
work. For example, Wernher von Braun was the brains behind the V-2 rocket program, but had
intimate knowledge of what was going on in the concentration camps. Von Braun himself
hand-picked people from horrific places, including Buchenwald concentration camp. Tsk-Tsk
Madeline.
What else? Oh, lets just say that like Madelaine Albright my husband is Jewish and lost
extensive family to Holocoust. Ukrainian nationalists executed his great grandfather on
gistapo orders, his great grandmother disappeared in concentration camp, grandfather was
conscripted in june 1940 and decommissioned september 1945 and went through war as
infantryman through 3 fronts earning several medals. his grandmother, an ukrainian born jew
was a doctor in a military hospital in Saint Petersburg survived famine and saved several
children during blockade. So unlike Maideline who was raised as a Roman Catholic, my husband
grew up in a quiet jewish family in that territory that Stalin grabbed from Poland in 1939,
in a polish turn ukrainian city called Lvov(Lemberg). His family also had to ask for an
asylum, only they had to escape their home in Ukraine in 1991. He was told then "You are a
nice little Zid (Jew), we will kill you last" If you think things in ukraine changed, think
again, few weeks ago in Kiev Roma gypsies were killed and injured during pogroms, and nobody
despite witnesses went to jail. Also during demonstrations openly on the streets C14 unit is
waving swastikas and Heils. Why is is not mentioned anywhere in the book? is is because
Hunter Biden sits on the board of one of Ukraine's largest natural gas companies called
Burisma since May 14, 2014, and Ukraine has an estimated 127.9 trillion cubic feet of
unproved technically recoverable shale gas resources? ( according to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA).1 The most promising shale reserves appear to be in the
Carpathian Foreland Basin (also called the Lviv-Volyn Basin), which extends across Western
Ukraine from Poland into Romania, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the East (which borders
Russia).
Wow, i bet you did not know that. how ugly are politics, even this book that could have been
so much greater if the author told the whole ugly story. And how scary that there are
countries where you can go and openly be fascist.
To me, Fascism fails for the single reason that no two fascist leaders are alike. Learning
about one or a few, in a highly cursory fashion like in this book or in great detail, is
unlikely to provide one with any answers on how to prevent the rise of another or fend
against some such. And, as much as we are witnessing the rise of numerous democratic or
quasi-democratic "strongmen" around the world in global politics, it is difficult to brand
any of them as fascist in the orthodox sense.
As the author writes at the outset, it is difficult to separate a fascist from a tyrant or
a dictator. A fascist is a majoritarian who rouses a large group under some national, racial
or similar flag with rallying cries demanding suppression or exculcation of those excluded
from this group. A typical fascist leader loves her yes-men and hates those who disagree: she
does not mind using violence to suppress dissidents. A fascist has no qualms using propaganda
to popularize the agreeable "facts" and theories while debunking the inconvenient as lies.
What is not discussed explicitly in the book are perhaps some positive traits that separate
fascists from other types of tyrants: fascists are rarely lazy, stupid or prone to doing
things for only personal gains. They differ from the benevolent dictators for their record of
using heavy oppression against their dissidents. Fascists, like all dictators, change rules
to suit themselves, take control of state organizations to exercise total control and use
"our class is the greatest" and "kick others" to fuel their programs.
Despite such a detailed list, each fascist is different from each other. There is little
that even Ms Albright's fascists - from Mussolini and Hitler to Stalin to the Kims to Chavez
or Erdogan - have in common. In fact, most of the opponents of some of these
dictators/leaders would calll them by many other choice words but not fascists. The
circumstances that gave rise to these leaders were highly different and so were their rules,
methods and achievements.
The point, once again, is that none of the strongmen leaders around the world could be
easily categorized as fascists. Or even if they do, assigning them with such a tag and
learning about some other such leaders is unlikely to help. The history discussed in the book
is interesting but disjointed, perfunctory and simplistic. Ms Albright's selection is also
debatable.
Strong leaders who suppress those they deem as opponents have wreaked immense harms and
are a threat to all civil societies. They come in more shades and colours than terms we have
in our vocabulary (dictators, tyrants, fascists, despots, autocrats etc). A study of such
tyrant is needed for anyone with an interest in history, politics, or societal well-being.
Despite Ms Albright's phenomenal knowledge, experience, credentials, personal history and
intentions, this book is perhaps not the best place to objectively learn much about the risks
from the type of things some current leaders are doing or deeming as right.
Each time I get concerned about Trump's rhetoric or past actions I read idiotic opinions,
like those of our second worst ever Secretary of State, and come to appreciate him more.
Pejorative terms like fascism or populism have no place in a rational policy discussion. Both
are blatant attempts to apply a pejorative to any disagreeing opinion. More than half of the
book is fluffed with background of Albright, Hitler and Mussolini. Wikipedia is more
informative. The rest has snippets of more modern dictators, many of whom are either
socialists or attained power through a reaction to failed socialism, as did Hitler. She
squirms mightily to liken Trump to Hitler. It's much easier to see that Sanders is like
Maduro. The USA is following a path more like Venezuela than Germany.
Her history misses that Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist, and Nazism in
Germany was a reaction to Wiemar socialism. The danger of fascism in the US is far greater
from the left than from the right. America is far left of where the USSR ever was. Remember
than Marx observed that Russia was not ready for a proletarian revolution. The USA with ready
made capitalism for reform fits Marx's pattern much better. Progressives deny that Sanders
and Warren are socialists. If not they are what Lenin called "useful idiots."
Albright says that she is proud of the speech where she called the USA the 'Indispensable
Nation.' She should be ashamed. Obama followed in his inaugural address, saying that we are
"the indispensable nation, responsible for world security." That turned into a policy of
human rights interventions leading to open ended wars (Syria, Yemen), nations in chaos
(Libya), and distrust of the USA (Egypt, Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, Israel, NK). Trump now has
to make nice with dictators to allay their fears that we are out to replace them.
She admires the good intentions of human rights intervention, ignoring the results. She says
Obama had some success without citing a single instance. He has apologized for Libya, but
needs many more apologies. She says Obama foreign policy has had some success, with no
mention of a single instance. Like many progressives, she confuses good intentions with
performance. Democracy spreading by well intentioned humanitarian intervention has resulted
in a succession of open ended war or anarchy.
The shorter histories of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Venezuela are much more
informative, although more a warning against socialism than right wing fascism. Viktor Orban
in Hungary is another reaction to socialism.
Albright ends the book with a forlorn hope that we need a Lincoln or Mandela, exactly what
our two party dictatorship will not generate as it yields ever worse and worse candidates for
our democracy to vote upon, even as our great society utopia generates ever more power for
weak presidents to spend our money and continue wrong headed foreign policy.
The greatest danger to the USA is not fascism, but of excessively poor leadership
continuing our slow slide to the bottom.
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
"... now, playing catch-up, the US is employing the crudest of methods: tariffs & military bullying (& God help us all, kidnapping). ..."
"... Copley implies that cohesive societies that seek victory over all other societies can't have it, because a cohesive society must have enemies, invented or carefully preserved if necessary. Perhaps that's what the Russia affair is about. If so, its not working. ..."
"... Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex. ..."
"... my take is that we are in the end game of imperialism. the western empire is in terminal decline and there will be more empires. from the evidence Russia and China, having learned the lessons of a few thousand years of experience are not seeking for empires. ..."
"... War is Good for Business and Organized Crime. Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Opium Trade. Rising Heroin Addiction in the US Afghanistan's opium economy is a multibillion dollar operation which has a direct impact on the surge of heroin addiction in the US. ..."
"... Place this against the U.S. – NSA – on record for what seems to be global surveillance having tapped the phones of U.S. European allies heads of states like Angela Merkel -among other things- with it's budget of $80 billion per year. Similar amount to the total Russian defense budget. Then there is the CIA and other "three letter organizations" in the U.S. and similar operations in the U.K. I think this is David against Goliath struggle and the latter is doing most of the beating. ..."
"... This madness is driving Russia into coalition with China and creating all sorts of totally unnecessary tensions. Forcing them to avoid the US dollar and so forth. How any of this supports western interests, or the interests of U.S. or U.K. citizens is a great misery. One thing is certain – this is self-destruction policy for the U.S. in the long run. This is what happens when the lunatics take over the asylum. ..."
"... Thankfully Vladimir Putin seems to be extremely capable and stable person – not likely to fall into temptation of hitting back with horrible consequences for world peace. ..."
"... Navarro appears to have the full support of Silicon Valley, Boeing and our other high tech exporters. On the other side is Wall Street and possibly British interests. For all of the hullabaloo about Trump violating the law against private citizens conducting foreign diplomacy when he was President-elect, the Wall Street crowd appears to have transgressed much further: ..."
Most recently, a dissident economist and failed California politician named Peter Navarro has parlayed his hostility toward China
into the role of key architect of Donald Trump's "trade war" against Beijing. Like his Russian counterpart Alexander Dugin, Navarro
is another in a long line of intellectuals whose embrace of geopolitics changed the trajectory of his career.
Raised by a single mom who worked secretarial jobs to rent one-bedroomapartments where he slept on the couch, Navarro went to
college at Tufts on a scholarship and earned a doctorate in economics from Harvard. Despite that Ivy League degree, he remained an
angry outsider, denouncing the special interests "stealing America"
in his first book and later, as a business professor at the University of California-Irvine, branding San Diego developers "punks
in pinstripes." A passionate environmentalist, in 1992 Navarro plunged into politics as a Democratic candidate for the mayor of San
Diego, denouncing his opponent's husband as a convicted drug-money launderer and losing when he smirked as she wept during their
televised debate.
For the next 10 years, Navarro fought losing campaigns for everything from city council to Congress. He detailed his crushing
defeat for a seat in the House of Representatives in a tell-all
book , San Diego Confidential,
that dished out disdain for that duplicitous "sell out" Bill Clinton, dumb "blue-collar detritus" voters, and just about everybody
else as well.
Following his last losing campaign for city council, Navarro spent a decade churning out books attacking a new enemy: China. His
first "shock and awe" jeremiad
in 2006 told horror stories about that country's foreign trade; five years later, Death By China was filled with
torrid tales of "bone-crushing, cancer-causing, flammable, poisonous, and otherwise lethal products" from that land. In 2015,
a third book turned to geopolitics, complete with carefully drawn maps and respectful references to Captain Mahan, to offer an
analysis of how China's
military was pursuing a relentless strategy of "anti-access, area denial" to challenge the U.S. Navy's control over the Western Pacific.
To check China, the Pentagon then had two competing strategies -- "Air-Sea Battle," in which China's satellites were to be blinded,
knocking out its missiles, and "Offshore Control," in which China's entire coastline was to be blockaded by mining six maritime choke
points from Japan to Singapore. Both, Navarro claimed, were fatally flawed. Given that, Navarro's third book and a companion
film (
endorsed by one Donald Trump) asked: What should the United
States do to check Beijing's aggression and its rise as a global power? Since all U.S. imports from China, Navarro suggested, were
"helping to finance a Chinese military buildup," the only realistic solution was "the imposition of countervailing tariffs to offset
China's unfair trade practices."
Just a year after reaching that controversial conclusion, Navarro joined the Trump election campaign as a policy adviser and then,
after the November victory, became a junior member of the White House economic team. As a protectionist in an administration initially
dominated by globalists, he would be excluded from high-level meetings and,
according toTime Magazine , "required to copy chief
economic adviser Gary Cohn on all his emails." By February 2018, however, Cohn was on his way out and Navarro had become assistant
to the president, with his new trade office now the co-equal of the National Economic Council.
As the chief defender of Trump's
belief that "trade wars
are good and easy to win," Navarro has finally realized his own geopolitical dream of attempting to check China with tariffs. In
March, the president slapped
heavy ones on Chinese steel imports and, just a few weeks later,
promised to impose more of them on $50 billion of imports. When those started in July, China's leaders
retaliated against what
they called "typical trade bullying," imposing similar duties on American goods. Despite a
warning from the Federal
Reserve chairman that "trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global economy," with Navarro at his elbow,
Trump escalated in September,
adding tariffs on an additional $200 billion in Chinese goods and threatening another $267 billion worth if China dared retaliate.
Nonetheless, Beijing hit
back, this time on just $60 billion in goods since 95% of all U.S. imports had already been covered.
Then something truly surprising happened. In September, the U.S. trade deficit with
China
ballooned to $305 billion for the year, driven by an 8% surge in Chinese imports -- a clear sign that Navarro's bold geopolitical
vision of beating Beijing into submission with tariffs had collided big time with the complexities of world trade. Whether this tariff
dispute will fizzle out inconsequentially or escalate into a full-blown trade war, wreaking havoc on global supply chains and the
world economy, none of us can yet know, particularly that would-be geopolitical grandmaster Peter Navarro.
The Desire to be Grandmaster of the Universe
Though such experts usually dazzle the public and the powerful alike with erudition and boldness of vision, their geopolitical
moves often have troubling long-term consequences. Mahan's plans for Pacific dominion through offshore bases created a strategic
conundrum that plagued American defense policy for a half-century. Brzezinski's geopolitical lunge at the Soviet Union's soft Central
Asian underbelly helped unleash radical Islam. Today, Alexander Dugin's use of geopolitics to revive Russia's dominion over Eurasia
has placed Moscow on a volatile collision course with Europe and the United States. Simultaneously, Peter Navarro's bold gambit to
contain China's military and economic push into the Pacific with a trade war could, if it persists, produce untold complications
for our globalized economy.
No matter how deeply flawed such geopolitical visions may ultimately prove to be, their brief moments as official policy have
regularly shaped the destiny of nations and of empires in unpredictable, unplanned, and often dangerous ways. And no matter how this
current round of geopolitical gambits plays out, we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be
grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.
Alfred W. McCoy, a
TomDispatch
regular , is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of
Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade , the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert
operations over 50 years, and the recently published
In the Shadows of the American Century:
The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power ( Dispatch Books).
Dugin, regardless of what minor success he had ten years ago, is not influential in the Kremlin. He did not orchestrate Russia's
absorption of Crimea. Simple strategic needs demanded that Crimea be absorbed, and a flawless Russian execution of an ambitious
plan won the day.
Peter Navarro is correct w/r/t China. Our trading relationship with China has been a disaster for our economy (to which I mean
our ability to have an economy absent financial shenanigans) and USG has effectively funded China's rise. There is no strategic
benefit to offshoring productive capacity. I don't really care if Navarro has failed at other tasks in his life. He is correct
on this one.
we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive
concept to guide his bold bid for global power.
Damn! Sounds just like me. Anyway, the US has made a lot of mistakes. It transferred much of its manufacturing base to China
and much of its technology. The Chinese see a chance to break away from the US economically and in technology.
The US invested in China's future. China invested in its future. Which is why China has a future.
Seeing geography as a decisive factor in the course of human history can be construed as a bleak view of the world, which
is why it is disliked in some intellectual circles. It suggests that nature is more powerful than man, and that we can only
go so far in determining our own fate.
Splitting the globe into ten distinct regions, former Sky News Diplomatic Editor Tim Marshall redresses our techno-centric
view of the world and suggests that our key political driver continues to be our physical geography. Beginning with Russia
(and its bewildering eleven time-zones), we are treated to an illuminating, border-by-border disassembly of what makes the
world what it is; why, for instance, China and India will never fall into conflict (the Himalayas), or why the Ukraine is such
a tactical jewel in the crown. With its panoptic view over our circumstance, Prisoners of Geography makes a compelling case
around how the physical framework of the world itself has defined our history. It's one of those books that prompts real reflection
and one that on publication absolutely grasped the imagination of our customers, ensuring it as a guaranteed entrant to our
2016 Paperbacks of the Year.
'One of the best books about geopolitics you could imagine: reading it is like having a light shone on your understanding.'
– Nicholas Lezard,
"There is no strategic benefit to offshoring productive capacity. "
Quite right. However – that horse has long bolted. And now, playing catch-up, the US is employing the crudest of methods:
tariffs & military bullying (& God help us all, kidnapping).
Unfortunately, circumstances demand a radical & imaginative response & even harder, a realisation that the horse has
bolted.
Now that you're here, you should read the Saker more. I'll pose this question though, If Russia and China are hell bent on
imperial expansion, why don't they show any interest in Mongolia? Fertile land, rich mineral resources, a tiny population incapable
of resistance it would be a no brainier. The reason they don't is because they are not imperial powers. Also, is empire a good
thing? In every historical example it has followed the same pattern and failed. Civilisations however endure through the ages.
" Vladimir Putin seeks to shatter the Western alliance with cyberwar " was where I noted this essayist is a fool and stopped
reading. Russians! Russians! Russians everywhere!
But since then has gone on to muse how it might be extended. My argument is that the Empire does not serve the American people
and is leading to the destruction of the republic and the American people. The sooner it ends the better, and if Trump can speed
up its demise, then he is our guy.
A very interesting article, for me, but, I suppose, for quite other reasons than most here expect. The essence of interest
is in the last two paragraphs.
In the first of these two those men are mentioned who by geopolitical ideas caused world wide disasters. If they did, I do not
know. The question 'did Napoleon make history or did history make Napoleon' still is a difficult one among historians, and will
remain difficult, is my idea. The man not mentioned in this paragraph is Hitler.
Then we get the ominous last paragraph, someone grabbing world wide power for geopolitical reasons, a great menace.
The essence of good propaganda is not telling lies, but telling just half truths. Not mentioned is that the area that now is
Germany for maybe hundreds of years could not feed the population, had to import food. In order to be able to import one must
export, a country with not enough agricultural production naturally must export industrial products, to fabricate these one needs
raw materials.
Not for nothing both WWI and WWII had geopolitical causes, German economic expansion to the SW and E, economic expansion that
threatened, in the British view, the autarcic British empire.
The implication of the last paragraph for me is clear, beware of the next Hitler. If the author has someone in mind who will
unleash the last world war is not clear to me.
Copley implies that cohesive societies that seek victory over all other societies can't have it, because a cohesive society
must have enemies, invented or carefully preserved if necessary. Perhaps that's what the Russia affair is about. If so, its not
working.
It's like the Federal German republic trying 90 year old people who were drafted as teenagers to be concentration camp guards
in late WW II, when the Reich was scraping through the bottom of the manpower barrel, or like the British digging up Cromwell's
bones (see Wikipedia, "Oliver Cromwell", section: "Death and posthumous execution"). Not convincing.
Alfred McCoy isn't the exact polar opposite of Bill Kristol who is wrong about everything , but McCoy does have a pretty
good track record of being mostly correct about the issues he covers, nevertheless, he still reads like an opinion column. He
also seems bonded by how he sees the American empire being some sort of force of benevolence when it acts and reacts in the same
manner as any other empire that's come and gone – and of course he loathes the idea of the next empire simply by default(they'll
brag about freedom too Alfred). And of course, in the realm of geopolitics, he never really mentions the bastard child; which
leaves a gaping hole in his analysis.
My guess is McCoy's basically on the right track. Not exactly, but he'll get you out of the woods.
For the past decade, he has been a forceful advocate for Russian expansionism
It gets a bit boring reading about how aggressive Putin is and how he wants to reconquer all the territories that were voluntarily
given up by his predecessors. How exactly would Russia benefit by reaquiring the Baltic States or Poland? These countries are
on life-support. Poland get $20bn annually in direct and indirect subsidies from the EU. As for Ukraine, what possible benefit
to Russia would it be to have an extra 35 million people who are broke. Ukrainians today spend half their income on food and that
other half on heat – and that in a country with a very cold winter.
Let's not forget that there would not have been a "Berlin Crisis" if Stalin had not given parts of Berlin to the USA, the UK
and France. Can you imagine the USA doing something similar? This whole article is a real let down. I am disappointed. I guess
every barrel has to have a rotten apple or two.
I would add that in my life, Henry Kissinger was the other supreme geopolitical theorist who attempted to establish a multipolar
geopolitics over a bipolar one. Keep in mind that it was he who essentially argued that China must be recognized in order to blunt
the USSR. Nixon thus became the one who opened China to the US, so that in theory the world was to be divided into the Russia
pole; the China pole; the American/NATO pole, and the "Third World" pole. With a dash of Mahan added to the mix, all would be
balanced and stable, or so Kissinger argued. Hmmmm, maybe not!
Are you for real? Have you looked at where these two respective areas are geographically? Hell, their borders aren't even adjacent.
As for China's interest in Tibet: what was once's part of the Empire will always be part of the Empire. Tibets been part of
the empire twice now, first under Genghis' Yuan Dynasty and again during under the Qing. That simple fact means from now until
the sun goes supernova, for China to be considered unified, Tibet must be a part of it. No ifs or buts.
That's not to mention the strategic considerations of occupying the high ground vis a vis the sub-continentals as well as the
area being the source of several great rivers. You'd have to be a madman to give that kind of advantage up.
@Anon Ghandi was of the opinion that the people of India, forgot the number, 100 million or more ?, served 400.000 rich Britons.
The Roman empire, I'd say 1% rich, 99% poor.
The tsarist empire, not much better.
The German empire again the exception, nowhere else at the end of the 19th century were common people in comparable living conditions.
The EU empire, EP members tax free incomes of some € 200.000 a year, plus an extravagant pension system.
Verhofstadt, additional income, not tax free, of at least € 450.000 a year.
Declarations, Schulz has been accused of spending € 700.000 in a year, among other things he liked a glass of wine.
When it suits their purpose, writers on economics–I won't call them Economists–praise the tiger-like speed and agility with
which Capitalism responds to the vagaries of pressures and demands that arise in world markets. But when they're engaging in public
relations we get this:
"Despite a warning from the Federal Reserve chairman that " trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global
economy ," .. Whether this tariff dispute will fizzle out inconsequentially or escalate into a full-blown trade war, wreaking
havoc on global supply chains and the world economy
which throw a protective cloak over a poor, picked-upon capitalism which is, apparently, incapable of getting out of its own
way.
Disappointing read. No, there is nothing to suggest that Dugin has any influence on Putin. No, there is no Russian cyberwar.
Putin's aims are Russia's recovery from the disasters of communism (a road to a blind alley as he has called it) and defending
Russia against NATO's expansion, colour revolutions and numerous false accusations.
Beijing is the place to look today for big strategic thinking.
@Puzzled reasons would be the last. Because the Europeans would find of other sources and shut out Russia as being an unreliable
business partner. Moreover, Russia is now the largest exporter of wheat and is developing export levels of production in soybeans
and pork. You can't sell to countries that you have wrecked militarily.
It's the U.S., not Russia that is playing the 800 pound Global Cop Gorilla with its war-mongering, economic warfare and global
subversion.
Like Puzzled, when I read that stupid, irrational line by Alfred McCoy, I simply stopped reading. Because nobody that dense
about obvious geo-political reality deserves to be read.
Disappointing read. No, there is nothing to suggest that Dugin has any influence on Putin.
No kidding. This is what happens when you get your Russian news from the Times and the Beeb. I mean, if Dugin were such a Kremlin
favorite, how could he have lost his job at Moscow State University? You'd think he could just pick up the phone, call 'Uncle
Vova', and get his job back!
Of course Putin is a Eurasianist, but that's not because Dugin told him to be one. It's because every Russian ruler has been
a Eurasianist for centuries now. Why? Just look at a map: Russia is located in Eurasia. Would we therefore expect the Russians
to be Pan-Africanists or something else? Naturally they're going to be Eurasianists. They learned long ago that if they don't
dominate Eurasia, somebody else will -- and that will cause security problems for Russia. I can't say I hold that against them.
It's not as though the US would take kindly to some foreign empire coming on over to the Western Hemisphere and setting up shop,
say, in Latin America. In fact, just consider how Washington reacted when the Soviets concluded an alliance with Cuba. There was
no talk about the 'sovereignty of small nations' coming from the wallscreen then!
What financial shenanigans? And how has the US effectively funded China's rise? And how do tariffs destroy China ? (tariffs
are like shooting yourself in the foot)
The cause for poverty is located at the Pentagon because they own the national debt! When if ever will the Joint Chiefs be
put on trial for these treasonous Wars and lost trillions?
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military
bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the *Pentagon* one of
the *largest* landowners worldwide.
Dec 21, 2013 Black Budget: US govt clueless about missing Pentagon $trillions
The Pentagon has secured a 630 billion dollar budget for next year, even though it's failed to even account for the money it's
received since 1996. A whopping 8.5 trillion dollars of taxpayer cash have gone to defence programmes – none of which has been
audited.
@Ilyana_Rozumova between other countries and with its own colonies. As the Dutch comparative advantage was frozen out, their
military aggression declined with it. America sitting on its hands while China becomes a giant Hong Kong and countries all over
Eurasia fall under its sway would by likely to lead to a very nasty war that America would loose and loose badly. It is better
to try now to stop China growing that big and dangerous by declining to trade with them under conditions that will inevitably
make them grow too large to fight. Will trade barriers to China work well enough? Probably not because they are past the lift
off stage now (Carter did too good a job), but it is worth a try.
There is opportunity for an American renaissance and really the only practical solution for its people – that is to swiftly
and decidedly push its pathetic government aside – and begin rapidly re-educating, re-training, re-tooling, and re-building a
next-generation manufacturing base.
Everything about this CIA agent's history lesson sounds fake. The blood sucking military runs the White House. ISIS or ISIL
or whatever the CIA calls itself today poses no threat. Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably
going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich
who own the military industrial complex.
@Sean ised an efficient military staff, efficient in planning. The Prussian army was the first to make extensive use of railways,
first time after the French 1870 attack. Very capable people, Germans. Red Army use of railways even in 1941 was a mess.
The GB preparations for the occupation of neutral Norway in April 1940, also a mess.
Pity quoted book is in German and with gothic letters, Ludendorff shows with extensive map material how the Germans in WWI fought
a two front, sometimes even three front war. Just possible through detailed transport planning.
Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918
As I said before, rhetorics such as 'USG has effectively funded China's rise' are just over-exaggeration if not BS. Facts:
–Foreign investments only constitute a small % of Chinese domestic investment,
–The majority of foreign Investment in china are NOT from US.
–Total investment in China in recent years amount to $trillions per year
If one cares to examine the major industrial sectors in China , like hi-speed rail, steel, photovoltaic panels, electricity,
energy,.. automobiles Only in the auto sector the americans have a sizable role because the yanks want market access.
we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive
concept to guide his bold bid for global power.
my take is that we are in the end game of imperialism. the western empire is in terminal decline and there will be more
empires. from the evidence Russia and China, having learned the lessons of a few thousand years of experience are not seeking
for empires.
empires, traditional ones, are now altogether too costly, especially approaching their end. the world wont tolerate that anymore.
the credit empire is working so far but the people have cottoned on to that. to end global banking power simply take over the
banks, and recuse all debt for they were fraudulently accrued.
all banking will then by need be worker co-ops able to deal with all the financial services required by society..no conglomerates
required
the capitalists will probably try a desperate military gambit to try maintain their empire but that wont work. they are already
outgunned unless they decide to take the world down with them.
but I don't think we will have to worry about such trade 'grandmasters' farting around with the world for too much longer.
the end of imperialism will make such work redundant
and if the democracy does not replace capitalism and the elite wins, it's a Brave New World we looking at. Brilliant geneticist
bent on engineering humans. brilliant mind controllers, psychiatrists and such would be useful job qualifications to have, not
trade specialist.
Brave New World also makes the trade 'genius' redundant
December 31, 2018 War is Good for Business and Organized Crime. Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Opium Trade. Rising Heroin
Addiction in the US Afghanistan's opium economy is a multibillion dollar operation which has a direct impact on the surge of heroin
addiction in the US.
It's always fun to read articles and history. This article was fun and perhaps thought provoking. But at least some parts of
it make no sense to me.
Take for example the "heartland" theory. Yes it probably made sense over a century ago when strategist -always looking in the
rear view mirror- judged the situation based on the Roman empire or Napoleons conquest. And their thoughts grounded in traditional
territorial wars.
Today with nuclear weapons, fast long range missiles and in very different economic reality, I don't think the "Heartland"
is the key to control the world, Eurasia, Europe or indeed anything else than possibly the "Heartland" it self. Control from the
Heartland over nuclear France or the U.K?
Annexing small part of land on your own borders whose inhabitants overwhelmingly welcome you with open arms, like Russians
did in Crimea, is totally different from conquering unwilling, hostile neighbors. The latter is extremely costly and difficult
exercise with just about zero upside but gaping black hole on the downside. Remember Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam? So the former
isn't indication of the latter!
I dont't see anything that supports the theory the Russians are playing by the book of the Heartland theory. In current political
situation it's outlandish idea. Perhaps the idea is to paint Russia's leaders as lunatics?
Yes the Russians are probably engaged in cyber-war. They seem to have the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg – as reported
by European media it's amateur operation costing perhaps few million dollars per year with 80 people from the unemployment list's
hammering on laptops working shifts creating and nurturing social media accounts. No experts in politics or advanced computing
in sight, no supercomputers, artificial intelligence. Like I said, amateur operation hardly indicating state-sponsored efforts.
Place this against the U.S. – NSA – on record for what seems to be global surveillance having tapped the phones of U.S.
European allies heads of states like Angela Merkel -among other things- with it's budget of $80 billion per year. Similar amount
to the total Russian defense budget. Then there is the CIA and other "three letter organizations" in the U.S. and similar operations
in the U.K. I think this is David against Goliath struggle and the latter is doing most of the beating.
The press? R.T and few other outlets versus the western MSM who has in recent years acted like a pack of rabid dogs against
Russia. Investigative journalism into international affairs is replaced by publishing official statements and "analysis" from
"experts". This is war propaganda – nothing less. And the Russians are playing desperate defense most days.
This madness is driving Russia into coalition with China and creating all sorts of totally unnecessary tensions. Forcing
them to avoid the US dollar and so forth. How any of this supports western interests, or the interests of U.S. or U.K. citizens
is a great misery. One thing is certain – this is self-destruction policy for the U.S. in the long run. This is what happens when
the lunatics take over the asylum.
Thankfully Vladimir Putin seems to be extremely capable and stable person – not likely to fall into temptation of hitting
back with horrible consequences for world peace.
It was a nice history essay, but there isn't much of a logical relationship between Mahan, Haushofer, et al. and the present
trade confrontation.
Navarro appears to have the full support of Silicon Valley, Boeing and our other high tech exporters. On the other side
is Wall Street and possibly British interests. For all of the hullabaloo about Trump violating the law against private citizens
conducting foreign diplomacy when he was President-elect, the Wall Street crowd appears to have transgressed much further:
It seems the New York banks would gladly trade the SV engineering jobs for a bigger share of the China banking business,
a la the Cleveland and Detroit auto industry jobs of the past.
A possible break with Britain is something even bigger to watch, as their involvement in China is even more finance-related.
@Anon ng, which far exceeded direct investments into China by any other country.
If we take a look at the Santander report on Hong Kong FDI, most of it seems to come from the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman
Islands (both offshore banking locations, with the funds coming from who knows where) and the UK.
"... Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex. ..."
Everything about this CIA agent's history lesson sounds fake. The blood sucking military
runs the White House. ISIS or ISIL or whatever the CIA calls itself today poses no
threat.
Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be
promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low
figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex.
When historians examine the first few decades of the so-called post-Cold War era, they are
likely to marvel at the clumsy and provocative policies that the United States and its NATO
allies pursued toward Russia. Perceptive historians will conclude that a multitude of
insensitive actions by those governments poisoned relations with Moscow, and by the latter
years of the Obama administration, led to the onset of a new cold war. During the Trump
administration, matters grew even worse, and that cold war threatened to turn hot.
Since the history of our era is still being written, we have an opportunity to avoid such a
cataclysmic outcome. However, the behavior of America's political, policy, and media elites in
response to the latest parochial quarrel between Russia and Ukraine regarding the Kerch
Strait suggests that they learned nothing from their previous blunders. Worse, they seem
determined to intensify an already counterproductive, hardline policy toward Moscow.
U.S. leaders managed to get relations with Russia wrong just a few years after the
dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. One of the few officials to capture the
nature of the West's bungling and how it fomented tensions was Robert Gates, who served as
secretary of defense during the final years of George W. Bush's administration and the first
years of Barack Obama's. In his surprisingly
candid memoirs , Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War , Gates recalls his report to
Bush following the 2007 Munich Security Council, at which Russian President Vladimir Putin
vented about Western security transgressions, including the planned deployment of a missile
defense system in Central Europe.
"When I reported to the president my take on the Munich conference, I shared my belief that
from 1993 onward, the West, and particularly the United States, had badly underestimated the
magnitude of the Russian humiliation in losing the Cold War . . . ." Yet even that blunt
assessment given to Bush did not fully capture Gates's views on the issue. "What I didn't tell
the president was that I believed the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after
[George H. W.] Bush left office in 1993. Getting Gorbachev to acquiesce to a unified Germany as
a member of NATO had been a huge accomplishment. But moving so quickly after the collapse of
the Soviet Union to incorporate so many of its formerly subjugated states into NATO was a
mistake."
Specific U.S. actions were ill-considered as well, in Gates's view. "U.S. agreements with
the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries was a
needless provocation."
His list of foolish or arrogant Western actions went on. Citing NATO's military
interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo during Bill Clinton's administration, Gates noted that "the
Russians had long historical ties with Serbia, which we largely ignored." And in an implicit
rebuke to his current boss, Gates asserted that "trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO
was truly overreaching." That move was a case of "recklessly ignoring what the Russians
considered their own vital national interests." Indeed, events regarding Ukraine after Gates
completed his memoirs illustrated that U.S. arrogance and meddling knew few bounds. U.S.
officials openly sided with
demonstrators who overthrew Ukraine's elected, pro-Russian government, and then reacted with
shock and anger when Russia retaliated by seizing and annexing Crimea.
Gates's overall assessment of Western, especially U.S., policy toward Russia during the
post-Cold War era was unsparingly harsh -- and devastatingly accurate: "When Russia was weak in
the 1990s and beyond, we did not take Russian interests seriously. We did a poor job of seeing
the world from their point of view and managing the relationship for the long term."
Unfortunately, Gates was one of the rare anomalies in the American foreign policy community
regarding policy toward Russia.
His criticism, trenchant as it is, still understates the folly of the policies that the
United States and its NATO allies have pursued toward Moscow. The treatment that three
successive U.S. administrations meted out to a newly capitalist, democratic Russia was
appalling myopic. Even before Vladimir Putin came to power -- and long before Russia descended
into being an illiberal democracy and then an outright authoritarian state -- the Western
powers treated the country as a de facto enemy. The NATO nations engaged in a series of
provocations even though Moscow had engaged in no aggressive conduct that even arguably
justified such actions.
The determination to confront Russia has only grown over the years, as the current tensions
involving the Kerch Strait illustrate. When Russian security forces fired on three Ukrainian
naval vessels that attempted to force a transit of the Kerch Strait (a narrow waterway between
Russia's Taman Peninsula and Russian-annexed Crimea that connects the Black Sea and Sea of
Azov), the United States and its NATO allies reacted furiously. U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations Nikki Haley branded Russia's conduct "
outlaw actions ."
An array of U.S. lawmakers and pundits advocate
highly provocative steps in response. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) the incoming chairman of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, urged an increase in U.S. arms sales to Ukraine, asserting,
"If Putin starts seeing Russian soldier fatalities, that changes his equation."
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) threatened new sanctions on
Russia and called for a coordinated response between the United States and its European allies.
"If Putin continues his Black Sea bullying," Inhofe stated, "the United States and Europe must
consider imposing additional sanctions on Russia, inserting a greater U.S. and NATO presence in
the Black Sea region and increasing military assistance for Ukraine."
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) echoed those views. Menendez called for tougher sanctions,
additional NATO exercises on the Black Sea and more U.S. security aid to Ukraine, "including
lethal maritime equipment and weapons." Some hawks even seem receptive to Ukrainian President
Petro Poroshenko's call on NATO to station warships in the
Sea of Azov, even though such a step would likely lead to a shooting war between the West and
Russia.
Far too many Western (especially American) analyses explicitly or implicitly act as though
the United States and its NATO allies worked assiduously to establish cordial relations with
Russia but were compelled to adopt hardline policies solely because of Russia's perversely
aggressive conduct. That is a distorted, self-serving portrayal on the part of NATO partisans.
It falsely portrays the West as purely a reactive player -- that NATO initiatives were never
insensitive, provocative, or aggressive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the
opposite is closer to the mark; Russia's actions, both in terms of timing and virulence, tended
to be responses to aggressive Western initiatives. Unfortunately, avid NATO supporters seem
determined to double down, insisting that the Trump administration adopt even more
uncompromising policies.
Contending that Moscow is to blame for the deterioration of East-West relations because of
its military actions in Georgia and Ukraine, as U.S. opinion leaders tend to do, is especially
inaccurate. The problems began much earlier than the events in 2008 and 2014. The West
humiliated a defeated adversary that showed every sign of wanting to become part of a broader
Western community. Expanding NATO and trampling on Russian interests in the Balkans were
momentous early measures that torpedoed friendly relations.
Such policy myopia was reminiscent of how the victorious Allies inflicted harsh treatment on
a defeated, newly democratic Weimar Germany after World War I. The NATO powers are treating
Russia as an enemy, and there is now a serious danger that the country is turning into one.
That development would be an especially tragic case of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at , is the author of 12 books and more than 750 articles on international
affairs. His latest book is Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic
Movements (forthcoming, February 2019).
The reason "we did a poor job of seeing the world from their point of view and managing
the relationship for the long term" is because we are arrogant and prone to meddling. It's
called American Exceptionalism, also known as American Imperialism. The future looks grim,
and, in my view, the current Cold War with Russia feels a lot more dangerous than the
original one because our leaders have upped the belligerence by orders of magnitude. At least
in the original Cold War the objective was merely containment of Communism. Our current
leaders want nothing short of global domination.
Another very insightful piece by Ted Galen Carpenter, and one that illustrates the
importance of seeing the other's point of view. Victors always see a settlement as final --
problem solved: the vanquished view it as temporary, to be reversed at the soonest opportunity.
What is being witnessed now is perhaps 'the tragic case of a self-fulfilling prophecy', but
perhaps also the pattern of history. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
I have a family full of people who believe in American Exceptionalism. In their view,
nothing the US or allies do can be wrong because the US is exceptional.
More than 20 years ago I started telling them the US and NATO are provoking Russia by
extending NATO into former Soviet states. This was revealed almost exactly one year ago:
During the past two decades, US politicians running for federal office were more concerned
about family Values, cutting taxes or expanding the social safety net. No one appeared to run
on a platform of expanding NATO or being concerned about Ukraine or a new cold war. I suspect
that the average voter has no clue as to who Victoria Nuland is and the role she played in
overthrowing the pro-Russian band of corrupt politicians in Ukraine in favor of a more pro-NATO
band of corrupt Neo-Nazi politicians.
How many American mothers want their sons in the military to be sent off to war to fight
over Sevastopol?
A great article. Basically, Ted Galen Carpenter points to the *irrationality* of the
American foreign policy establishment towards the world's only other strategically (as opposed
to defensively) nuclear-armed nation. Is irrational animus against such a country dangerous?
Very.
"Global domination" isn't twaddle, Brian. The 2018 National Defense Strategy lists as one of
our objectives "Maintaining
favorable regional balances of power in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, and the
Western Hemisphere."
Africa isn't on this particular list, but we have troops stationed in Niger, Somalia,
Djibouti, and Cameroon. We are seeking to establish a base in Ghana.
I think "global domination" is a fair description of our actual goal.
Average life expectancy in Russia declined as neoliberal and capitalist exploitation abetted
by Yeltsin gave rise to organized oligarchy.
Today, average life expectancy in the US is declining.
The US really needs a Gorbachev. Doesn't look like it will get one before all the
manufactured "Russia!" hysteria carries us to the end of the Moment of Unipolar Disorder.
I am in full agreement with this article. I am not alone. In 1998 George Kennan made his
final public pronouncement on US foreign policy in the NYT. He cautioned that American and
Western eagerness to expand NATO would trigger a new Cold War and was folly. Mikhail Gorbachev
has no love for Putin who put an end to Gorbie's desires to lead a social democratic party in
Russia. However, he has echoed Kennan in condemning an aggressive NATO and finding the West up
to their eyeballs in the Ukraine debacle. Let's not forget that Under Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland was in Kiev throughout the Maidan Square uprising -- baking cookies for
militants and condemning Euros for considering new elections in the Ukraine instead of a coup.
To finish seasoning the brother, CIA Chief James Brennan visited Kiev in April 2014 -- an
amazing action really. CIA chiefs do not usually show up in the middle of an international
trouble spot -- but obviously Obama didn't mind the message. We don't have to like Putin to
realize that the Russian public feels genuinely aggrieved by Western policies since the Cold
War ended, especially after the close US involvement with the Yeltsin debacle.
In Cold War it was not modern Russia that was defeated, but rather Soviet Union and the
whole idea of Communism. Russian Federation is not the USSR, it is a capitalist state (OK one
can say "wild" or "croney" capitalist- it does not really matter, "capitalist" is the key word
here). The only thing all last Soviet/Russian leaders desired, including Gorbachev, Eltsin and
early Putin- was to become junior partners of the West in general and US in particular. It was
very clear from all they did and said at that time. Basically what was needed from the West is
to do smth like second Potsdam and co-opt Russia in the new world order. That was a golden
opportunity moment because at that moment Russian leadership and population in general would
sign under such policy.
How US managed to get in the situation where we are now is an interesting question for future
historians (providing that in the future there will be historians and not radioactive
dust).
Buf may be a clue here is the position of military-industrial complex? How else they can get
their unaccounted trillions? Russia is the ideal enemy. US can not live without a real enemy
for God knows what reason. There is some existential problem may be.
But one thing should be taken into account. Russia has a long tradition of defeating would-be
global hegemons. It would be a major folly if US joins that list.
The idea of territorial conquest and control as a means of growing prosperity for a
civilization is obsolete. Exploration and colonization of space, the pursuit of fusion power,
addressing our living arrangements, and so on, should be where we are striving to excel, not
poking a nuclear armed bear with a stick.
However, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The unimaginative in our
nation's government, who can't see their own brokenness, should go into retirement and let
people with a vision that promotes peace and stability and real progress have a turn at the
wheel for a change.
Putin will be dead in two decades, maybe less, and Russia will start backsliding and
probably break apart even further. China, in its zeal to maintain control, will remain what it
always had been, an intelligent people hamstrung by a rigid mandarin overclass. Neither of
these so-called powers are worth spending any more time on.
Let America and the West build a permanent presence on the Moon and Mars. What then of
Crimea?
@Michael Kenney: if you are so convinced that military force is needed to stop Putin, stop
preaching idiocies and go to Ukraine and sign up with the many neo-Nazi paramilitaries there
and get to fighting. They take foreign volunteers.
The more one pays attention, the more one realizes that "1984" was not fiction we have
always been (we NEED to be) at war with Eurasia.
After all, the aim of modern war is not to win we have not had a Victory that matters since
1945. The aim of modern war is $$ and career advancement for the connected few. War posture
against a credible enemy is essential.
Thank you for that comment, Observer. You are a Russian, no? That's what your English
suggests to me. I hope you keep commenting here -- we Americans need a little perspective.
Quote 1) U.S. officials openly sided with demonstrators who overthrew Ukraine's elected,
pro-Russian government,
Worse still, they sided with, if not directly empowered the very worst, openly fascist
elements of Ukrainian society who directly spearheaded the overthrow. mere months before new
elections. In essence, a repeat of the m.o. of the 1953 Iranian coup. Atlantic Council
ideologues can fabricate a progressive liberal agenda for Maidan ad nauseum and to
ever-diminishing effect. It was Nuland's 'dark colors' that did the heavy lifting, and very
likely by direct collusion and design. Woe be to our machinations.
Quote 2)and then reacted with shock and anger when Russia retaliated by seizing and annexing
Crimea.
Russia did not 'seize' Crimea. Crimeans in the vast majority willingly seceded from Ukraine
and joined Russia, as they had already attempted at various times for decades and as a de facto
'autonomous republic' had every right to do. Certainly at least as much right as Slovenia did
in its unilateral secession, sans referendum and sans a state coup instigating it.
Other than the de rigueur western soundbites, much in this article is directly on point.
In any case this was a positive step by Trump. Which was done after several disastrous,
typical neocon style actions.
Notable quotes:
"... Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of ..."
"... "Trump being Trump?" Seriously? He's proven through his actions and his appointments that he's a full-blown neocon ..."
"... If nothing else, appointing Bolton as national security advisor speaks volumes. Personnel is policy, as they say. ..."
"... Nothing to wonder at, war is the most lucrative racket going, for those who profit mightily from supplying weapons. It's become so important to an otherwise shrunken manufacturing base, that downsizing would affect employment, and there's nowhere domestic to absorb the overseas demobilized. ..."
"... Bolton is a national disgrace. This vile piece of trash is desperate to get the USA into a disastrous war with Iran. The quicker Bolton is removed the better. Any stooge who supported the Iraq invasion should be precluded from consideration. ..."
"... "Before we credit Trump with stumbling on something sensible for once, it might be wise to remember that we're still talking about -- Trump. Who now says that American troops still in Iraq can still raid into Syria as necessary, and by the way, they'll be staying in Iraq. So already it's shaping up as not so much a withdrawal as a reshuffling. After a minor adjustment to the game board, play can continue as necessary, such as whenever Bolton or Fox media whispers into the casino bankrupt's ear. Always always always a swindle, with Trump. It's an iron law." ..."
"... You do know that Trump wants to increase the military budget. Yet you maintain that he wanted to pull us out of foreign wars. Curious. Where would all that extra money go? ..."
"... Only an incompetent imbecile with no experience in leadership or government could be so dim-witted as to appoint people who would willfully defy and disregard his agenda. Surely our country would never put give such an incompetent so much authority. Oh wait sorry, never mind. ..."
"... I took his decision of withdrawal from Syria and seemingly from Afghanistan is his survival strategy for 2020 presidential election to appeal to war weariness American voters because Mr. Cohen's plea deal and the revelation of Trump signature on the license agreement for Moscow Trump Tower project would kill his 2020 chance. It is a good strategy but over the last two days his approval rating has not been improved." ..."
"... Those of us who want to see Bolton gone should first ask why he was chosen in the first place. Clearly Trump had to appease Adelson in order to make that appointment because he depends on his campaign donations. ..."
"... To those who say Trump has no foreign policy vision, you are wrong. His vision is simple, dismantle parts of the Empire, become a little more isolationist, and focus on 'America First'. Trump is not very intelligent, but he has the right instincts. He is up against the War Party, the most influential power center in the US, and that is not easy. Obama is more intelligent than Trump, but the results were very bad add one more destroyed country, Libya to his credit, and almost another, Syria (although thankfully the Russians stopped that). ..."
After Syria, Trump Should Clean Out His National Security BureaucracyThey're
undermining his positions and pursuing their own agendas. John Bolton should be the first to
go.
President Donald Trump has at last rediscovered his core foreign policy beliefs and ordered
the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. Right on cue, official Washington had a collective
mental breakdown. Neocons committed to war, progressives targeting Trump, and centrists
determined to dominate the world unleashed an orgy of shrieking and caterwauling. The
horrifying collective scream, a la artist Edvard Munch, continued for days.
Trump's decision should have surprised no one. As a candidate, he shocked the Republican
Party establishment by criticizing George W. Bush's disastrous decision to invade Iraq and
urging a quick exit from Afghanistan. As president, he inflamed the bipartisan War Party's
fears by denouncing America's costly alliances with wealthy industrialized states. And to
almost everyone's consternation, he said he wanted U.S. personnel out of Syria. Once the
Islamic State was defeated, he explained, Americans should come home.
How shocking. How naïve. How outrageous.
The president's own appointees, the "adult" foreign policy advisors he surrounded himself
with, disagreed with him on almost all of this -- not just micromanaging the Middle East, but
subsidizing Europeans in NATO, underwriting South Korea, and negotiating with North Korea. His
aides played him at every turn, adding allies, sending more men and materiel to defend foreign
states, and expanding commitments in the Middle East.
Last spring, the president talked of leaving Syria "very soon." But the American military
stayed. Indeed, three months ago, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced an entirely
new mission: "We're not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders
and that includes Iranian proxies and militias."
That was chutzpah on a breathtaking scale. It meant effectively that the U.S. was entitled
to invade and dismember nations, back aggressive wars begun by others, and scatter bases and
deployments around the world. Since Damascus and Tehran have no reason to stop cooperating --
indeed, America's presence makes outside support even more important for the Assad regime --
Bolton was effectively planning a permanent presence, one that could bring American forces into
contact with Russian, Syrian, and Turkish forces, as well as Iranians. As the Assad government
consolidates its victory in the civil war, it inevitably will push into Kurdish territories in
the north. That would have forced the small American garrison there to either yield ground or
become a formal combatant in another Middle Eastern civil war.
The latter could have turned into a major confrontation. Damascus is backed by Russia and
might be supported by Ankara, which would prefer to see the border controlled by Syrian than
Kurdish forces. Moreover, the Kurds, under threat from Turkey, are not likely to divert forces
to contain Iranians moving with the permission of the Damascus government. Better to cut a deal
with Assad that minimizes the Turks than be Washington's catspaw.
The Pentagon initially appeared reluctant to accept this new objective. At the time,
Brigadier General Scott Benedict told the House Armed Services Committee: "In Syria, our role
is to defeat ISIS. That's it." However, the State Department envoy on Syria, Jim Jeffrey, began
adding Iran to his sales pitch. So did Brian Hook, State's representative handling the
undeclared diplomatic war on Iran, who said the goal was "to remove all forces under Iranian
control from Syria."
Apparently this direct insubordination came to a head in a phone call between President
Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "Why are you still there?" the latter asked
Trump, who turned to Bolton. The national security advisor was on the call, but could offer no
satisfactory explanation.
Perhaps at that moment, the president realized that only a direct order could enforce his
policy. Otherwise his staffers would continue to pursue their militaristic ends. That
determination apparently triggered the long-expected resignation of Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis, who deserves respect but was a charter member of the hawkish cabal around the
president. He dissented from them only on ending the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Still in place is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who so far has proven to be a bit more
malleable though still hostile to the president's agenda. He is an inveterate hawk, including
toward Tehran, which he insists must surrender to both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia as part of any
negotiation. He's adopted the anti-Iran agenda in Syria as his own. His department offered no
new approach to Russia over Ukraine, instead steadily increasing sanctions, without effect, on
Moscow. At least Pompeo attempted to pursue discussions with North Korea, though he was
certainly reluctant about it.
Most dangerous is Bolton. He publicly advocated war with both Iran and North Korea before
his appointment, and his strategy in Syria risked conflict with several nations. He's
demonstrated that he has no compunctions about defying the president, crafting policies that
contradict the latter's directives. Indeed, Bolton is well-positioned to undermine even obvious
successes, such as the peaceful opening with North Korea.
Supporting appointments to State and the National Security Council have been equally
problematic. Candidate Trump criticized the bipartisan War Party, thereby appealing to
heartland patriots who wonder why their relatives, friends, and neighbors have been dying in
endless wars that have begotten nothing but more wars. Yet President Trump has surrounded
himself with neocons, inveterate hawks, and ivory tower warriors. With virtually no aides
around him who believe in his policies or were even willing to implement them, he looked like a
George Bush/Barack Obama retread. The only certainty, beyond his stream of dramatic tweets,
appeared to be that Americans would continue dying in wars throughout his presidency.
However, Trump took charge when he insisted on holding the summit with North Korea's Kim
Jong-un. Now U.S. forces are set to come home from Syria, and it appears that he may reduce or
even eliminate the garrison in Afghanistan, where Americans have been fighting for more than 17
years. Perhaps he also will reconsider U.S. support for the Saudis and Emiratis in Yemen.
Trump should use Secretary Mattis's departure as an opportunity to refashion his national
security team. Who is to succeed Mattis at the Pentagon? Deputy Secretary Patrick Shanahan
appears to have the inside track. But former Navy secretary and senator Jim Webb deserves
consideration. Or perhaps it's time for a second round for former senator Chuck Hagel, who
opposed the Gulf war and backed dialog with Iran. Defense needs someone willing to challenge
the Pentagon's thinking and practices. Best would be a civilian who won't be captured by the
bureaucracy, one who understands that he or she faces a tough fight against advocates of
perpetual war.
Next to go should be Bolton. There are many potential replacements who believe in a more
restrained role for America. One who has been mentioned as a potential national security
advisor in the past is retired Army colonel and respected security analyst Douglas
Macgregor.
Equally important, though somewhat less urgent, is finding a new secretary of state.
Although Pompeo has not so ostentatiously undermined his boss, he appears to oppose every
effort by the president to end a war, drop a security commitment, or ease a conflict. Pompeo's
enthusiasm for negotiation with Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin is clearly lagging. While the
secretary might not engage in open sabotage, his determination to take a confrontational
approach everywhere except when explicitly ordered to do otherwise badly undermines Trump's
policies.
Who to appoint? Perhaps Tennessee's John Duncan, the last Republican congressman who opposed
the Iraq war and who retired this year after decades of patriotic service. There are a handful
of active legislators who could serve with distinction as well, though their departures would
be a significant loss on Capitol Hill: Senator Rand Paul and Representatives Justin Amash and
Walter Jones, for instance.
Once the top officials have been replaced, the process should continue downwards. Those
appointed don't need to be thoroughgoing Trumpists, of whom there are few. Rather, the
president needs people generally supportive of his vision of a less embattled and entangled
America: subordinates, not insubordinates. Then he will be less likely to find himself in
embarrassing positions where his appointees create their own aggressive policies contrary to
his expressed desires.
Trump has finally insisted on being Trump, but Syria must only be the start. He needs to
fill his administration with allies, not adversaries. Only then will his "America First" policy
actually put America first.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
.
After two years in office, I am utterly flabbergasted that there are still people out
there who take seriously the notion that Trump wants to extricate us from our wars around the
globe and refrain from starting new ones. Virtually every foreign policy decision he has made
has been contrary to that.
Finally, for once, he decides to pull out of Syria (a mere few weeks after he announced we
would stay there indefinitely) and somehow this one, as yet unimplemented decision represents
"Trump being Trump?" Seriously? He's proven through his actions and his appointments that
he's a full-blown neocon . Maybe I'll rescind the "full-blown" part of that judgment if
he actually does withdraw from Syria. But it would still be a pretty tiny exception to his
thoroughly neocon actions up to this point.
If nothing else, appointing Bolton as national security advisor speaks volumes.
Personnel is policy, as they say. And you'd have have spent the last two decades in a
coma living on another planet not to know that Bolton is the biggest warmonger around. He
makes most of the neocons look like pacifists by comparison. Even the people who think Trump
a complete idiot can't really imagine that Trump didn't know what he was getting when he
hired Bolton.
Let's get real here. It'll be great if he withdraws from Syria. It'd be even better if he
replaces his national security team along the lines suggested in this article. But don't hold
your breath. It would go against nearly everything he has done since taking office.
It's time to come to grips with the non-existence of the tooth fairy.
"heartland patriots who wonder why their relatives, friends, and neighbors have been
dying in endless wars that have begotten nothing but more wars."
Nothing to wonder at, war is the most lucrative racket going, for those who profit
mightily from supplying weapons. It's become so important to an otherwise shrunken
manufacturing base, that downsizing would affect employment, and there's nowhere domestic to
absorb the overseas demobilized.
The downside of this, therefore, is it may only be redirection and consolidation, to be able
to concentrate forces on Iran instead. The budget's not getting any smaller, so there's got to
be compensatory warmaking somewhere.
Bolton is a national disgrace. This vile piece of trash is desperate to get the USA into
a disastrous war with Iran. The quicker Bolton is removed the better. Any stooge who supported
the Iraq invasion should be precluded from consideration.
"Yet President Trump has surrounded himself with neocons, inveterate hawks, and ivory
tower warriors."
In fairness to Trump, there just was nobody else. He had nobody lined up to be an
administration that believed what he did. Republicans were all hawks. Democrats wouldn't think
of helping, and were also all hawks anyway.
Trump's first effort to break out of that with second or third-line people went bust with
the likes of Gen. Flynn, and he was left with going back to the very people he'd defeated.
At this point in time I don't think Trump will be able to win a second term, such is the
chaos he's brought about to his Presidency. So that leaves to question which of the men you
have suggested to help lead Trump to a less warlike America would choose to serve? Perhaps
first, we need an "Adult" as POTUS and maybe then, we can get "men of wisdom" who can help
America get out of it's "Military Misadventures" in the Middle East.
There is no problem replacing someone who should never have been tapped in the first place.
John Bolton. Never too soon to right a wrong. Get rid of neocon Bolton and his types now. Not
later. He marches to another drummer not to USA interests. I doubt Trump can even beat Kamila
Harris (darling of the illiberal left) in 2020 if he keeps Bolton and Co. around.
I wouldn't get overly excited about this. Trump has habitually initiated all levels of chaos
throughout his incompetent administration. This is nothing new but more of the same. If anyone
believes Trump actually found his brain, they are smoking something
What a joke. Trump has no "foreign policy vision," just a series of boisterous, bellicose
talking points that to his isolationist base and his own desire to be the strongman.
"Before we credit Trump with stumbling on something sensible for once, it might be
wise to remember that we're still talking about -- Trump. Who now says that American troops
still in Iraq can still raid into Syria as necessary, and by the way, they'll be staying in
Iraq. So already it's shaping up as not so much a withdrawal as a reshuffling. After a minor
adjustment to the game board, play can continue as necessary, such as whenever Bolton or Fox
media whispers into the casino bankrupt's ear. Always always always a swindle, with Trump.
It's an iron law."
However, just 6 days ago sglover said on another thread ("Washington Melts Down Over Trump's
Syria Withdrawal" -- Dec 21, 3:26 pm):
"I despise Trump, but if he's managed to stumble on doing something sensible, and actually
does it (never a certainty with the casino swindler) -- great! There's no sane reason for us
to muck about in Syria. However it comes about, we should welcome a withdrawal there. If the
move gives Trump some of the approval that he plainly craves, maybe he'll repeat the
performance and end our purposeless wallow in Afghanistan. It doesn't say anything good about
the nominal opposition party, the Dems, that half or more of them -- and apparently *all* of
their dinosaur 'leadership' -- can't stifle the kneejerking and let him do it. Of course many
of them are "troubled" because their Israeli & Saudi owners, er, 'donors' expect it. But
some of them seem to have developed a sudden deep attachment to 'our mission in Syria' for no
better reason than, Trump is for it, therefore I must shout against it. And then, of course,
there's the Russia hysteria. Oh yeah, what a huge win for Moscow if it scores the 'prize' of
occupying Syria! If that's Putin's idea of a big score, how exactly does it harm any American
to let him have it? I wonder if the Democratic Party will ever be capable of doing anything
other than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?"
The problem with they article begins with it's first sentence "President Donald Trump has at
last rediscovered his core foreign policy beliefs " I can't find any core foreign policy
beliefs. What I have seen is a mosh-mosh of sound bites that resound well with his audiences at
rallies, and various people attempt to link those together and fill in the white space between
with what they WANT his foreign policy beliefs to be. But to go so far as to say he has any
consistent beliefs that combine to form a foreign policy is going way too far.
Replace Bolton with Mike Flynn after all charges are dropped against him. Then have Robert
Mueller et al. arrested to be tried and put to death for High Treason. Then liberate Britain,
Bomb the Vatican, and put a naval blockade on China.
You do know that Trump wants to increase the military budget. Yet you maintain that he
wanted to pull us out of foreign wars. Curious. Where would all that extra money go? I'd
look for it at the top of Trump Tower. Certainly not in the pockets of ordinary citizens.
Hmm This article makes it seem like there's these renegades who have somehow held onto power
and are charting America's course on their own. But doesn't the President hand pick the members
of his cabinet? Wasn't every single one of them given their authority *by Donald Trump*?
Only an incompetent imbecile with no experience in leadership or government could be so
dim-witted as to appoint people who would willfully defy and disregard his agenda. Surely our
country would never put give such an incompetent so much authority. Oh wait sorry, never
mind.
We have a "peaceful opening" with North Korea? How many months ago did Mr. Bandow last read
about the NoKos counter-proposal to unconditional nuclear disarmament? And what about all the
Trump saber-rattling that preceded this so-called opening? If Trump was "played" by his own
advisers on Afghanistan, he was equally duped by the mirage offered by Kim.
Trump had no lofty notions underpinning this decision. He did it in an impetuous, chaotic
manner in which he obtained nothing in return from Russia or Turkey or Iran to address our
broader strategic interest in the region, such as ending the war in Yemen. Like everything he
does, it reeks of corruption and no doubt will be added to Muellers investigation.
Contrary to Bandows libertarian take, it is an expression of Trumps imperial presidency. The
Syrian involvement has strong bipartisan support even if lacking a resolution in support (and
the Libertarian Sen. Paul never got anywhere with a resolution against.) Leaving Syria was the
correct long term strategic decision.
I'm sure 99% of democrats in Congress supported the action. Only trump, with his
narcissistic incompetence could take an action that his opponents would overwhelmingly support
if done in a credible manner and turn it into controversy. Trump looks like the servant of
Russians and Turks in his conduct. Jan 2021 can't come soon enough.
I find it interesting that so many people (the author apparently included) are still so slow
to understand that Trump can't afford to get rid of people, because he literally can't find new
cabinet members.
He started with mostly C-listers, and most of them are gone. He is on to hiring TV hosts,
bloggers, professional political grifters, his family, or just being stuck with straight-up
vacant posts.
Only the worst sorts would voluntarily work for such an angry, undisciplined, chaotic boss
in the smoking shambles of an organization like this administration.
You just go ahead and ask Chuck Hagel if he would join this train wreck.
I blogged on December 22 when I read a similar article like this;
"Every time I read such article as this about Mr. Trump's decisions of any sort, I always
wonder if the authors believe that he has solid political philosophy or consolidated policy
agenda.
I took his decision of withdrawal from Syria and seemingly from Afghanistan is his
survival strategy for 2020 presidential election to appeal to war weariness American voters
because Mr. Cohen's plea deal and the revelation of Trump signature on the license agreement
for Moscow Trump Tower project would kill his 2020 chance. It is a good strategy but over the
last two days his approval rating has not been improved."
Mr. Trump seems to have delivered a speech in Iraq saying that the withdrawal from Syria
would not give any adverse effect on Israel security because the US government gives more than
$45 billion every year according to a local newspaper of Middle East.
This is another tactic to appeal to AIPAC to make sure his own security for 2020 candidacy,
isn't it?
First 2000 troops is not much more than a reinforced battalion the USMC shuffles that many
warriors and more around the Mediterranean every six months. I think the issue with Trump is,
as it's always been, his gut seat of his pants way of handling virtually everything he does.
There's no control or consideration apparent in any action other than to pitch chum at his
largely illiterate followers.
In this case he's handed a huge victory to Putin (my my what a surprise that is) and
essentially screwed the Kurds. If nothing else those 2000 troops were at least keeping a cap on
things to some small degree. That's out the door now and I can't help but think that ISIS (aka
the enemy here) will have a vote on what happens next.
Those of us who want to see Bolton gone should first ask why he was chosen in the first
place. Clearly Trump had to appease Adelson in order to make that appointment because he
depends on his campaign donations. What makes anyone think that the situation has changed
in such a way as to permit Trump more autonomy in his choice of his cabinet?
To those who say Trump has no foreign policy vision, you are wrong. His vision is
simple, dismantle parts of the Empire, become a little more isolationist, and focus on 'America
First'. Trump is not very intelligent, but he has the right instincts. He is up against the War
Party, the most influential power center in the US, and that is not easy. Obama is more
intelligent than Trump, but the results were very bad add one more destroyed country, Libya to
his credit, and almost another, Syria (although thankfully the Russians stopped that).
What is mysterious is the following from the article:
'Yet President Trump has surrounded himself with neocons, inveterate hawks, and ivory tower
warriors. With virtually no aides around him who believe in his policies or were even willing
to implement them, he looked like a George Bush/Barack Obama retread.'
Why he does this, I don't know.
Pulling out of Syria will be a good thing for everyone. The reason is largely nonsense, as
it was Russia/Syria that destroyed Isis (we did manage to destroy another city, Raqqa), but I
don't care, and neither will the American Public, who understand nothing of Syria.
The Kurds will make an arrangement for limited autonomy with Damascus (already happening as
they just asked for protection from Turkey in Manbij). Turkey will not invade Syria as long as
they feel Damascus can control the border. Syria, Russia, and maybe even the Kurds will wipe
out the last of Isis and those militants in Idlib that would rather die than give up the fight
(the fanatics), will be killed.
Then, the reconstruction of Syria can begin in earnest, and it is to be hoped that the
Chinese will get off their butt and provide some assistance.
Israel is probably unhappy, which pleases me no end, and I hope this is an indication that
there is some limit to the number of people we are willing to murder on their behalf.
@ NEexpert.Integrity is a quality severely lacking in many politicians in the US.Not being
American , but watching closely, if Senator hagel is such a man , it would do American politics
much good ,not only for the US but the US standing in the world .Gods speed in chnaging the
likes of Bolton and Pompeo to begin with.
@ Kurt Gayle -- I don't think you'll find any contradiction between my two remarks.
All I'm saying is that in all the ways that really matter the sudden "withdrawal" from Syria
is already shaping up to be a typical Trump bait-and-switch. Sure, troops won't be bivouacing
in Syria. Instead, they'll be stationed next door in Iraq, so they can continue to muck around
in Syria. And Trump emphasized that as far as he's concerned we'll be staying in Iraq.
(Of course, that "strategic doctrine" is only valid until his next Fox media wallow in front
of the idiot box. I.e., maybe until tomorrow afternoon)
"... Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer before working as a CIA analyst for the next 27 years. Ray admits to a modicum of bias against Marine officers, but not those with whom he worked back in the day. He is co-creator of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes Marines who remember what Semper Fi means. ..."
"... A case in point is when you hear members of congress criticize Trump decision to withdraw the US army personals from Syria and Afganistan. These members forget that the US army in Syria is in violation of international laws and US laws as well. ..."
utgoing Defense Secretary Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis was famous for quipping , "It's fun to shoot some
people." It remains a supreme irony that Mattis was widely considered the only "adult in the
room" in the Trump administration. Compared to whom? John Bolton, the rabid neocon serving as
national security adviser? That would be the epitome of "condemning with faint praise."
With his ramrod-straight image, not to mention his warrior/scholar reputation extolled in
the media, Mattis was able to disguise the reality that he was, as Col. Andrew Bacevich
put it on
Democracy Now! this morning, "totally unimaginative." Meaning that Mattis was simply incapable
of acknowledging the self-destructive, mindless nature of U.S. "endless war" in the Middle
East, which candidate-Trump had correctly called "stupid." In his resignation letter, Mattis
also peddled the usual cant about the indispensable nation's aggression being good for the
world.
Mattis was an obstacle to Trump's desire to pull troops out of Syria and Afghanistan (and
remains in position to spike Trump's orders). Granted, the abrupt way Trump announced his
apparently one-man decision was equally stupid. But the withdrawal of ground troops is
supremely sane, and Mattis was and is a large problem. And, for good or ill, Trump -- not
Mattis -- was elected president.
Marine Wisdom
Historically, Marines are the last place to turn for sound advice. Marine Gen. Smedley
Butler (1881-1940), twice winner of the Medal of Honor, was brutally candid about this after he
paused long enough to realize, and write, "War is a Racket":
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members
of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My
mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-
ups. "
Shortly after another Marine general, former CENTCOM commander Anthony Zinni, retired, he
stood by silently as he personally watched then-Vice President Dick Cheney give his most
important speech ever (on August 26, 2002). Cheney blatantly lied about Iraq's (non-existent)
WMD, in order to grease the skids for the war of aggression against Iraq. Zinni had kept his
clearances and was "back on contract." He was well read-in on Iraq, and knew immediately that
Cheney was lying.
A few years later, Zinni admitted that he decided that his lips would be sealed. Far be it
for a Marine to play skunk at the picnic. And, after all, he was being honored that day at the
same Veterans of Foreign Wars convention where Cheney spoke. As seems clear now, Zinni was also
lusting after the lucrative spoils of war given to erstwhile generals who offer themselves for
membership on the corporate Boards of the arms makers/merchants that profiteer on war.
Marine officer, now Sen. Pat Roberts, R, Kansas, merits "dishonorable mention" in this
connection. He never rose to general but did become Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee
at an auspicious time for Cheney and Bush. Roberts kowtowed, like a "good Marine," to their
crass deceit, when a dollop of honesty on his part could have prevented the 2003 attack on Iraq
and the killing, maiming, destruction, and chaos that continues to this day. Roberts knew all
about the fraudulent intelligence and covered it up -- together with other lies -- for as long
as he remained Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman
Scott Ritter on Pat Roberts
Roberts's unconscionable dereliction of duty enraged one honest Marine, Maj. Scott Ritter,
who believes "Semper Fi" includes an obligation to tell the truth on matters of war and peace.
Ritter, former UN chief weapons inspector for Iraq, who in April 2005 wrote, "Semper Fraud,
Senator Roberts," based partly on his own experience
with that complicit Marine.
Needless to say, higher ranking, more malleable Marines aped Zinni in impersonating Uncle
Remus's Tar Baby -- not saying nuttin'.
It is conceivable that yet another sharply-saluting Marine, departing Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, may be tapped by Trump to take Mattis's job. If that happens,
it will add to President Trump's bizarre penchant for picking advisers hell-bent on frustrating
the objectives he espoused when he was running for office, some of which -- it is becoming
quite clear -- he genuinely wants to achieve.
Trump ought to unleash Mattis now, and make sure Mattis keeps his distance from the Pentagon
and the Military-Industrial Complex before he is asked to lead an insurrection against a highly
vulnerable president -- as Gen. Smedley Butler was asked to do back in the day. Butler said
no.
Top Photo | U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, sits on stage during a change of command
ceremony at the U.S. Southern Command headquarters on Nov. 26, 2018, in Doral, Fla. Brynn
Anderson | AP
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church
of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer before
working as a CIA analyst for the next 27 years. Ray admits to a modicum of bias against Marine
officers, but not those with whom he worked back in the day. He is co-creator of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes Marines who remember what Semper Fi
means.
I am not so much surprised that military generals keep their mouths shot rather than tell
the truth when the truth is needed to avoid wars. But worse is that the US congress which are
supposed to overlook over the government misbehavior to make the government abide by the laws
and protect the interests of the people against government wrongs.
A case in point is when you hear members of congress criticize Trump decision to
withdraw the US army personals from Syria and Afganistan. These members forget that the US
army in Syria is in violation of international laws and US laws as well.
The congress are supposed the authority to declare war but the US is engaged in multiple
wars without US Congress authorization. Worse off these idiots want to force the Trump
administration to keep its illegal wars going on? What is the role of the congress??? To
correct and force the Administration to abide by the rule of laws of the force them to keep
violating international laws and US laws as well????
Trump's bizarre penchant for picking advisers hell-bent on frustrating the objectives
he espoused when he was running for office
It's bizarre that he's hired so many Bill Kristol approved neocons when they abandoned him
for Hillary in 2016. Or not so bizarre when one remembers what Russ Tice said about Cheney
using the NSA to get blackmail dirt. Now they've lost control, so it will be interesting to
see how they try to regain it.
Chickenhawk (bird)
- Wikipedia "In the United States, chickenhawk or chicken hawk is an unofficial designation for three species
of North Americanhawks in the family
Accipitridae :
Cooper's hawk , also
called a quail hawk, the sharp-shinned hawk , and the red-tailed hawk . The term
"chicken hawk", however, is inaccurate. Although Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks may attack
other birds, chickens do not
make up a significant part of their diets; red-tailed hawks have varied diets, but may
opportunistically hunt free-range poultry . "
Notable quotes:
"... In defense of the chickenhawk -- the actual bird ..."
"... So while I certainly despise the useless eaters that agitate for war while having not the slightest idea what combat of any kind is about, I always cringe at the degradation of the word 'chickenhawk' a mighty little predator whose good name should not be sullied in association with such human detritus ..."
The first time I saw one in action, it was quite a revelation I looked out the kitchen
window to see what looked like a blue jay perching on some kind of largish rock that he was
pecking at of course that made no sense at all and upon closer examination it turned out to
be a tiny raptor, not even a foot long from beak to tail, standing on a much larger dead
chicken and ripping flesh off of it I ran out back toward the chicken yard and the mighty
little slayer flew off the poor hen had a good part of her back flesh removed
Pretty amazing that such a tiny bird could take a chicken easily ten times its weight --
the sharp shinned hawk weighs just 200-400 grams
So while I certainly despise the useless eaters that agitate for war while having not
the slightest idea what combat of any kind is about, I always cringe at the degradation of
the word 'chickenhawk' a mighty little predator whose good name should not be sullied in
association with such human detritus
"... Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else. ..."
Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot
is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed
how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive
dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else.
As to the wall, it is one of the silliest projects ever suggested. Maybe that's why it was so easy to sell it to the intellectually
disadvantaged electorate. There are two things that can stop illegal immigration.
First, go for the employers, enact a law that fines them to the tune of $50,000 or more per every illegal they employ. Second,
enact the law that anyone caught residing in the US illegally has no right to enter the US legally, to obtain asylum, permanent
residency, or citizenship for life, and include a provision that marriage to a US citizen does not nullify this ban.
Then enforce both laws. After that illegals would run out of the country, and greedy employers won't hire any more. Naturally,
the wall, even if built, won't change anything: as long as there are employers trying to save on salaries, immigration fees, and
Social Security tax, and people willing to live and work illegally risking nothing, no wall would stem the flow.
Unfortunately, no side is even thinking about real measures, both are just posturing.
Am wondering in which prosperous U.S. Zionist "career" field has John Yoo landed?
He is a distinguished professor at Berkley Law, UC. Here's his bio:
Professor Yoo is the Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and director of the Korea Law
Center, the California Constitution Center, and the Law School's Program in Public Law and
Policy. His most recent books are Striking Power: How Cyber, Robots, and Space Weapons
Change the Rules for War (Encounter 2017) (with Jeremy Rabkin) and Point of Attack:
Preventive War, International Law, and Global Welfare (Oxford University Press, 2014).
Professor Yoo is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a visiting
fellow at the Hoover Institution
From 2001 to 2003, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of
Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on issues involving
foreign affairs, national security and the separation of powers.
Notice how they gloss over his diabolical activities as deputy AG for the Bush II
Adminstration "where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security and the
separation of powers."
And, oh, yeah, he cobbled together legal statements that gave the Bush Admin carte blanche
to engage in "enhanced interrogation techniques," more commonly known as "torture." He was
about to be in big dodo for his crimes. but just like the 5 dancing Israelis were rescued by
Chertoff, a guy named David Margolis managed to get Yoo off the hook:
The Office of Professional Responsibilty (OPR) report concluded that Yoo had "committed
'intentional professional misconduct' when he advised the CIA it could proceed with
waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda suspects,"
although the recommendation that he be referred to his state bar association for possible
disciplinary proceedings was overruled by David Margolis, another senior Justice department
lawyer.
My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims
and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally
occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again ™
Apart from the questions raised by some from the alternative media:
The fact is the mossad could easily pull this off, having so many Israelis from
Northern-African and Middle Eastern extraction, fluent in Arab and looking exactly like well,
Arabs. They could infiltrate and recruit Arab salafist patsies and easily organize terrorist
attacks without executing the hits themselves. And it is actually a genius move:
1) Create a terrorist thread in Europe, making Westerners wary of Arabs, ie more likely to
understand Israel policies towards Palestinians and side with Israel (message being:
apartheid State? what else can we Israelis do? Palestinians are all gropers, misogynists,
homophobes and potential terrorists FYI)
2) Hit the countries with the most Jews (France, Germany and UK) so they are more likely
to start packing up to make Aliyah, so Israel's demographic problem is at least temporarily
solved, retaining a majority population of Jews.
3) Make the US, through the Jewish lobby in the US, attack strategic countries such as
Libya, Iraq and Syria, creating a migrant tsunami to flood Europe, making Europeans even more
wary of Arabs and understanding of Israeli's treatment of Palestinians (Arabs) and also
making European Jews even more likely to make Aliyah. I even have heard of Israeli NGOs
funded by the Israeli Ministry of FA operating in Lesbos and helping "refugees" to flood
Europe. After a public outcry the Ministry logo vanished from the NGOs sponsors page.
Even the Cologne issue with the gropings, and I am getting too conspiratorial here, could
have been a group of Israeli provocateurs kickstarting the whole assaults wave. Let's say, a
group of mossad operatives, composed of Israelis from Northern-African and/or Middle Eastern
extraction, with false documentation and fluent in Arab, start groping and assaulting German
women, taking advantage of the total chaos offered and facilitated by moronic Merkel. They
get caught? no problem, false passports or even no passports at all, just give false names
and disappear. Not that Arabs need that much help to make themselves look bad, after all some
American reporter was assaulted *live* and for what I have read the lecherous groping of
women walking alone is a well documented problem in all the ME. But maybe thanks to a little
push by provocateurs, an incident big enough was engineered and the image of Arabs in the
West reached historic lows thanks to the Cologne affair.
And creating phoney terrorist groups to use them for false flags is not something new at
all for the mossad, let's all remember what the FLLF was and how almost executed an US
Ambassador.
Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic
mentally unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United
States.
Oh my – the Jew "meathead" is a "childish moronic mentally unstable malignant
narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States.
"Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally
unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States."
He and fellow tribesmen are welcome to sign up and go fight Israel's wars themselves, just
not with white male republican blood. The guy is good at border skirmishes, too. He led an
effort to keep poor Mexicans out of his rich Malibu neighborhood back in 2014 by refusing
Whole Foods a building location. Like most of his kind, he's a sociopathic hypocrite and a
liar.
@MAGAnotMISA
What I miss is destroying white cultures through mass immigration.
Though what I miss in this theory what exactly is the objective, is it whites and Muslims
annihilating each other, or just divide and rule ?
But maybe thinking in this way has not gone far enough.
Bernard Baruch's world domination plan failed miserably, but he even failed to understand
that it had failed, otherwise he had not in 1946 pleaded for a world government.
One must not underestimate the enemy, but also not overestimate him.
Jewish policies for the last 2000 years can hardly be seen as a success.
Judaism lost the battle with christianity, bolsjewism failed in Russia, getting equal rights
in W Europe led to the WWII deportations, with or without gas chambers, Israel succeeded in
surrounding itself with enemies, as neighbours, and all over the world, and jewish puppet
Hillary was not elected.
The latest statements by Netanyahu confirm my idea of a complete idiot.
I continue to be amazed that anyone gives any credibility whatsoever who claims US Mideast
military involvement is in the best interest of the nation. The above-mentioned commenters
must almost inevitably more about self-interest than anything patriotic. As for appearing
profound, well, there's Rob Reiner!
@anon
In the idea that the USA is the new zion Trump indeed commits treason.
Before Israel was established many USA rabbis were against zionism, because in their view the
USA already was zion.
As to
, the use of such words for me means utter confusion, rational analysis no longer
possible.
Arthur Koestler was of the opinion that yiddish precluded sensible discussion.
The mentioned words show that he was wrong about the cause.
As I sat in Christmas Eve service last night, an adorable little boy played quietly with his
father in the seat next to us. The little boy was probably just under 2 years of age.
In the middle of one of the Christmas Carols the thought struck me,
"I wonder if we will still be in ___________ war 17 years from now, when this
little boy becomes enlistment age . . ."
That thought alone makes me favor Trump for re-election. I think (I could be wrong, I'm no
expert) we have less war and a lesser risk of war with Trump. The "establishment" policies
of: invade the world – invite the world – in hoc with the world; are horrifically
deadly and destructive.
1. US withdrawal from Syria, and apparently all non-nato committed US troops from
Afghanistan.
2. Willingness to shutdown Government in order to force funding for the wall
3. Rumors of subpoena's being handed out at G.H.W Bush's funeral
4. Senate investigations into Clinton Foundation with auditors claiming jaw dropping
corruption
5. Grand Jury empaneled to investigate into 9/11
I don't know if Q is a psyop, but a lot of the things he has been saying appear to be
coming closer to reality. We can be certain that none of this would have happened had Clinton
been elected.
Meanwhile the deep state is not taking this lying down.
1. Netanyahu is threatening to increase operations in Syria. Perhaps he warned Trump to
get out because he is going to go nuclear or bio.
2. The global warming panic propaganda is being turned up to "broil" as weather warfare has
been unleashed across the planet.
3. Ukraine attempting to drag Nato into a war for the Kerch straight.
4. Stockmarkets tanking as the Fed keeps tightening while Mnuchin performs the "plunge
protection team rag"
5. Iran war threats and Persian gulf sabre rattling
6. Heeb financial war against Russia, Iran and China.
7. Heeb technology war against China (Huawei arrest)
Even if the US leaves Syria as Trump claims, they certainly will not just hand everything
over to Assad. The Damascus/Baghdad hiway re-opening through Al Tanf and the hand over of all
Euphrates river crossings to Syria would be indication of a true change of policy.
As usual, Giraldi is spot on with his observations. I wish him a Merry Christmas and hope to
see a lot more of his articles in the coming year.
I find Rob Reiner amusing, if not occasionally annoying. After having spent decades up to
my nose with his tribe while working in LA in the entertainment industry I can guarantee
Hollywood Jews go completely apoplectic anytime they perceive their government, the
Jewish-occupied government that rules over us all, is not following their commands.
Come to think of it, apoplexy's first definition is a stroke, its second definition is: a
state of intense and almost uncontrollable anger. One can only hope that jerks like Reiner
who indulge so heavily in the second definition will end up experiencing the first, and good
riddance.
I'd just add that few things would please me more than to have DJT draft the human
chickenhawks due to their indispensable expertise and place their backsides in-country to
dole out their words of wisdom there.
The honorable & courageous American Man endowed with precision scientific/political
wisdom wrote, with special appeal to me: "Withdrawing from Syria is the right thing to do,
though one has to be concerned that there might be some secret side deals with Israel , that
could actually result in more attacks upon Syria."
Call me crazy, but I'm still a bit leery, cautiously hopping this is not just another
charade. Is this just another way to allow the dissection of Syria to take another path?
Always remember if Trump is in opposition to his globalist master's he will be removed,
one way or the other.
Thank you for that! I now realize that the appellation chickenhawk used in reference to
the "let's you and him" fight gang is a slur on a fine little raptor. You have educated
me.
A mong hawks in N. America, Cooper's Hawk ( Accipiter cooperii ),
Red-shouldered Hawk ( Buteo lineatus ), and Red-tailed Hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis
) are the three species most likely to take domestic chickens, or yardbirds as they are
sometimes called, and it is these three species that are or have been commonly called
Chickenhawks in the United States, at least among non-birders, who are people with neither
binoculars nor field guide.
But I think most here know that Philip Giraldi is referring to the craven human variety of
warmonger known in some circles as the Yellow-tailed Chickenhawk, or its close relative the
Yellow-bellied Chickenhawk.
President Trump's announcement is a very nice Christmas present, which I choose to take a
face value pending unwrapping. As always, actions speak louder than words. Let's hope that
there isn't a booby prize or two lurking beneath the Christmas tree and hidden by the big
surprise package, or that there isn't a lump of coal at the bottom of our holiday
stockings.
@wayfarer
Not sure if the opening word's in the first video are spoken by Sheikh Imran N Hosein. It
sounds like him. I just wanted to say I have listened to a lot of his messages and find him
very enlightening. For those who believe in end time prophecy, I think you will find well
versed and extremely intelligent, as compared to many of the so called "Christian" huckster's
out there selling religion for dollars.
Pipelines to Europe for KSA and fresh water sources for Israel? Destabilising a local
rival of both? Who knows?
What we do know is that "we" have allowed our "leaders" to pimp out our military to the
rogue special interests of the world. We have the best government foreign interests can
buy.
The Zionist MSM and MIC and the Zionist AIPAC and company are the hounds of Hell baying for
war as warmongers always want war as long as they do not have to fight it and can reap the
profits from the wars!
Zionists have instigated every war that the U.S. has been in since WWI and right on down
through the Mideast slaughter house that Israel and her Zionists patrons have sent Americans
to fight and die in and by crippled for life in and the millions of civilians, men, women and
children that have been murdered in the wars fought for Zionist Israel!
The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep state did
911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where the
Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it , when every
thinking American knows that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911!
Finally Trump has done the right thing by getting out of Syria and now should get the hell
out of the Mideast and Afghanistan and close the slaughter houses!
God bless Putin and Russia and Assad and Syria for saving the people of Syria and
defeating ISIS aka Al CIADA ie a creation of the U.S. and Israel and Britain!
Zionists and Israel will be the death of America unless we wake up and smell the
coffee!
@renfro
One hopes that Russia will have stationed its advanced air defense systems throughout Syria.
And they should not be afraid to shoot down the Israeli aggressors.
@jilles
dykstra Jilles,
Haven't you completely contradicted your prior response to @renfro about Trump? You called
him a "complete idiot, leading a country to destruction," now you are claiming he is a
"reasonable man, who understands that warfare is just a destruction of wealth." He can't be
both, can he?
@DESERT
FOX Of extreme importance, Desert Fox of"The most incredible thing was that the Zionists
and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast
wars and the war on terror where the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs
and got away with it ,"
Christmas Day greetings, Desert Fox!
Re; above sentence, a cordial question.
Is there anything you know & which you have not said (to date) that might signal that
the American-Israeli Empire's mighty military is prepped to allow the Assad and Rouhani
anti-Zionist governments to stand?
Uh perhaps, either delay or junk establishment of Greater Israel?
Am convinced Trump would only slow down international Jewry's plan. Or else no unguarded
JFK convertible limo trips for him on reelection-campaign road.
@chris
Let's think about this. The USA has not been able to defeat the Afghan Taliban forces in 17
years. It brought down Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, but, with that unfortunate country
totally destroyed, how could you call that a win (I doubt if the Iraqi's consider the US to
be liberators). Now the crack pot Obama/Hillary campaign has lost in Syria, and Trump wants
to pull out. All three countries were much smaller and weaker than Iran, and the US is much
weaker, morally and militarily, than it was after the 9/11 hoax. And, after Russia has
expended much blood and treasure in ensuring victory for Assad and the Syrian people, will it
now sit on its hands as the US Air Force dismantles Teheran? Plus there is a resurgent China,
dependent on Iranian oil, to consider.
I'm not saying that Trump will not start a war against Iran (for Israel's benefit). But,
he'd better be prepared for the consequences, which will all be devastating to the American
Empire. Be careful what you wish for.
But Israel supported by Saudi Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to
follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality.
Positioning American military forces to "counter" Iran does not reduce the threat against
the United States because there was no threat there to begin with.
Yes of course, I would just add that Israel hates Iran.
Rand Paul and others have been pushing back hard against the NEOCON narrative here, good
news. The initial anti Trump tide has turned in this matter.
I briefly saw Bill Krysrol's smug mug on TV the other day. Wouldnt it be nice if that Satanic
'fellow' was harrased at home like, unfortunatley, Tucker Carlson was. (Instead of
Carlson)
Trump telling General Mattis to pack his bags and begone is the work of a good CEO. Mad Dog
could have done a lot of damage to Mr. Trump's agenda if he had been allowed to stay on until
the end of February, as he had said he would. In corporate America, if an underling is
disloyal to the CEO, he will be told to vacate the premises for good by the end of the
workday, and escorted out of the building by armed security. His keys will be taken, all
locks will be changed, and his passwords expunged. No doubt Trump, as CEO, has had to employ
such tactics many times before. He obviously relishes saying "You're Fired!"
Any competent Trump loyalist can be found to replace this worn out old soldier. I hope he
won't be yet another general. MacArthur said that "old soldier never die, they just fade
away." Time for Mattis to do just that, and never be heard from again.
@Parsnipitous
Reading my comment again, I can see where I might have misinterpreted Jilles intent. If so, I
apologize. However, if he had identified, by name, who he was referring to, perhaps I
wouldn't have been confused.
Syria is a money pit for the taxpayers and giant profit source for the super rich. 'The
United States military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the U.S. itself or vital
interests' says Trump, Obama or Bush. But war is too important to be left to politicians.
They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. Trump
was appointed by rich people only so they could have someone to blame. 100% of the voters
believe they personally have the right to kill women and children overseas with their hired
mercenaries to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests. Americans shell out taxes to pay
for US troops to guard mining operations and poppy fields in Afghanistan, oil fields in Iraq,
online propaganda and so much more. Why deploy the United States Military when there's more
profit in hiring private mercenaries? Plus you don't have to say that "vital interests" crap
anymore.
opening the door to NATO's Turkey to go after the Kurd units there
Must look to the North:
On Turkey's Northwest front, tensions are high between the Greek Military & some foreign
controllers of Greece, and the Turkish Military, and their leaders.
This article is an excellent summary of msm and neocon reaction to the planned US withdrawal
from Syria and a good survey of why getting Uncle Sam out of Syria makes sense. I would also
add that allying with the Kurds was at best a short term solution. Not only would a Kurdish
state in eastern Syria be unacceptable to Turkey but the Sunni Arabs of the Euphrates Valley
would be certain to resist Kurdish rule. Merry Christmas to all!
For once, let all nuclear arsenal be directed at the Middle East and when the smoke clears
after a thousand years, there will be no God, Jews or Arabs to deal with any of remaining
humans will be welcomed!
@ChuckOrloski
In my opinion, Zionist Israel will never stop being the agent provocateur in the Mideast and
elsewhere ie the Ukraine etc., and since the Zionists control the U.S. government I think
their satanic NWO plans are still in place, and think the U.S. military is just going to be
placed in Iraq and Jordan ie just across the border to Syria and will continue with their
proxy mercenaries aka AL CIADA aka ISIS.
Some good sites to follow are Southfront.org and Henrymakow.com and Stevequayle.com and
Thetruthseeker.co.uk etc., all things considered even Putin said that Russia will wait and
see if the U.S. really leaves the Mideast, I wish all our troops would be brought home, but
with the Zionist control of our government it will never happen.
It is snowing here in Montana so we have a white Christmas, which we could do without, but
have a Merry Christmas!
Yes to Trump and withdrawal from Mid East Wars, down with MSM, The Neocons, the 1% , the deep
state and Israel, the whole World hates these assholes. Go Donny Daddy!
If you want to know who's agitating for war, look no further than our "friends," the Brits.
This is what they do every single time a U.S. President doesn't commit troops to some war
they've approved of, or started. They terror bait, or mock, or a combination of the two. And
since a lot of people in Washington take them seriously, it has appreciable impact on our
policies.
@Z-man
Israel fears Iran, is my idea.
Norman Finkelstein once stated that Israeli jews do not see how there ever can be peace with
the Palestinians 'after all we did to them'.
Not all jews are idiots.
Forgot in which book I read that in the thirties a zionist reached Palestine, and saw that
this was not the 'land without people for people without land'.
He stated 'this is a crime'.
The destruction and destabilisation of the ME, an Israeli plan, as far as I know.
In 1921 and later years there was the enormous population exchange, without any financial
compensation, between Turkey and Greece.
To this day tensions exist between the two countries.
Iran is one of the oldest civilisations.
Twice, one might say even three time, the west overthrew Iranian democracy.
Iran knows of course quite well that the VS brought Saddam to power so that he could
subjugate Iran, that had rid itself of the USA puppet shah.
Iran also of course knows quite well jewish power in the USA, Bush' s promise to AIPAC to
destroy Iraq.
Will those leading Iran now ever trust the USA or Israel ?
So that Netanyahu and USA jewry now are in complete panic, who had expected it to be
otherwise ?
Uri Avnery wrote 'the only language zionists understand is power. Is there a problem, use
power, if it does not help, use more power, if that also fails, use even more power'.
There has never been any serious negotiation between Israel and its neighbours, or with
the Palestinians.
About the Oslo negotiations a book appeared in Israel with the title 'how we fooled the
Palestinians'?
Sharon answered any Arab League peace proposal with force, Jenin, one of them, if my
recollection is correct.
There always was the idea of overwhelming more military power, and of USA support.
Kissinger saved Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war by flying over hundreds of the newest
USA anti tank weapons, wire guided, TOW.
What will the USA do in case Israel is attacked ?
Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?
Macron is not skiing between Christmas and New Year.
French is my worst language, but 'huis clos' is curtains closed, the expression is used often
for court proceedings without an audience, closed doors.
If my idea is correct that he stays indoors because his security cannot be guaranteed, maybe
someone whose first language is French can enlighten me.
Whatever the case, the man who wants an EU army now has trouble keeping peace in his own
country.
NATO, Stoltenberg's face during the dinner with Trump, disbelief.
Trigger and restrain, at the moment the Yellow Vests have caused the impossibility for
Brussels to do anything, survival is what concerns them.
@DESERT
FOX Desert Fox with a Montana-attitude, soft side, said: "It is snowing here in Montana
so we have a white Christmas, which we could do without, but have a Merry Christmas!'
Greetings from snowless Scranton, Desert Fox!
Over decades, have reflected upon Charles Schulz's great (1965) "Charlie Brown Christmas."
Prior to it's release, I have scant memory that Mr. Schulz had to battle those who wanted the
traditional Nativity of Christ and spiritual meaning out of the way. Fyi, Charles's opponents
lost!
As Christ-trashing Hollywood "Christmas" films dominate & mis-educate our popular
culture, please, please, please look (below) at the beautiful narration of "Charlie Brown
Christmas."
This is the first sane thing Trump did in two years. Also, this is the first action he
promised his supporters in 2016. Naturally, Israel-firsters, who in 2016 backed the corrupt
mad witch to a man, are unhappy. Their unhappiness is a good sign that this action is
actually in American interests. If Trump folds and reverses, this would expose him as a 100%
fraud. If he sticks to his guns, maybe there is hope for him yet. Stay tuned.
@wayfarer
No snow here in Albuquerque, NM, but the skies are loaded with chemtrails. I guess the sky
spider's never get a day off. Here's hoping you and your's have a merry Christmas.
Trump wants Turkey to stop harassing Saudi Arabia about Kashoogi's murder and be more
complacent with Israel. He also wants Israel to become more anxious abiut its security so it
agrees on the Palestinian peace plan elaborated by Jared Kuchner and MBS.
Turkey has now promised to fight ISIS which it never did. Saudi Arabia as well as Syria wants
Turkey humiliated, defeated and out of Syria. It may well happen when the Turkish army will
be confronted with a renewedc ISIS manipulated by Saudi Arabia and Syria.
It seems that the withdrawal of the US forces from Syria may trigger the end of Erdogan's
hegemonic dreams in the region and the victorious return of Syria among the Arabs.
@follyofwar
Oh, no; I don't mean Trump will start some major ground offensive to win anything! No,
they'll just try to destroy Iran in order to give jihadist a chance to kill as many people as
possible. This will be a Libyan-style war and "victory."
"President Donald Trump's order to withdraw from Syria has been greeted, predictably, with an
avalanche of condemnation culminating in last Thursday's resignation by Defense Secretary
James Mattis. The Mattis resignation letter focused on the betrayal of allies "
Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this, at
face value.
Orange clown's alleged disengagement from Syria may be (and probably is) nothing more that
a tactical retreat/change in plans for which the Mattis resignation is merely a fig leaf;
that is, it's just more of the same disingenuous dialectics that we've been bombarded with
since the beginning of the "Trump" administration.
Apparently we're urged to conclude that Trump has finally had enough of the people he
knowingly and willingly surrounded himself with, and their agenda, and now all of a sudden
(because of some kind of a spiritual epiphany, pro-American New Year's resolution, etc.) he
wants to do right by (some of) his supporters by doing what he should've done a long time
ago. (And the hint of a military drawdown in Afghanistan adds a nice touch).
Sorry but I can't buy what they're selling.
If in addition to withdrawing from Syria orange clown were to stop arming the "government"
of "Ukraine" and agree to negotiations with Russia on the issue of intermediate range nuclear
armed missiles in Europe – with a goal to support/strengthen the INF treaty rather than
withdraw from it – I might be willing to entertain the idea that something's
changed.
As it is now it'll take a lot more than the obligatory "avalanche of condemnation" i.e.,
cheap words, to convince me that the perfidious orange clown and his jewish-supremacist
handlers are doing anything other than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with one
hand while steering it into the iceberg with the other hand.
Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this,
at face value.
agree
just watch their behaviour – the wall never gets built even though they are now
talking about increasing the "defense" budget from $700 billion to $750 billion next year
– the increase alone is the cost of two walls
Although Russia has avoided any direct military challenge to NATO, it has nonetheless
shown a growing willingness to disrupt the status quo: through its use of force in Georgia
in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014, its often indiscriminate military intervention in Syria,
and its aggressive use of cyberwarfare to attempt to affect political outcomes in the
United States and Europe.
Haass is a Cheney's choice of opportunist and Goebbelsian kind of criminal:
Haass was born to a Jewish family in Brooklyn From 1989 to 1993, he was Special
Assistant to United States President George H. W. Bush and National Security Council Senior
Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs. In 1991, Haass received the Presidential
Citizens Medal for helping to develop and explain U.S. policy during Operation Desert
Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Haass argued that the leaders of the United States
should adopt "an imperial foreign policy" to construct and manage an informal American
empire (Haass 2000)
The U.S. has 2,000 soldiers in a kill-sack if Erdogan decides to cut off their supply lines.
And, calling Erdogan "unreliable" is something of an understatement. The U.S. can say very
little about Erdogan's behaviour while he can take reprisals on U.S. troops.
-- Turkey and Saudi are feuding, and the U.S. needs Saudi more than Turkey to maintain
sanctions and other pressure on Iran.
-- Turkey is becoming dangerously deranged in its statements about Israel (1). And the
U.S. / Israeli relationship is vital for many reasons.
-- Turkey has been a threat to Christian Cyprus for decades. The Leviathan-Cyprus-Greece
pipeline is important to help free Christian Populist EU nations, such as Italy, from
tyrannical rule under Soros-servitors Merkel and Macron.
Do not over over read the withdrawal as a change in regional strategy. There are no major
policy changes. This is about opening the door to push out Erdogan, if that becomes necessary
to support the existing U.S. regional strategy. And, the U.S. can still hope that Erdogan is
saying demented things solely for domestic consumption and doesn't intend to actually follow
thru on the crazy.
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of
a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly
seen as a serious threat.
"which was rightly seen as a serious threat."
So it was, was it? That's really the beginning of the bullshit in American policy. There were
a few naysayers back then, since largely vindicated by the opening of former Soviet archives,
who claimed that Stalin's postwar moves were largely defensive in nature and intended to
protect the USSR from the talked about US preemptive attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin was
well aware of all the loose talk on the American side and his country had just endured the
same attempt on the part of Nazi Germany.
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the
expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union,
which was rightly seen as a serious threat.
Could someone explain to me how exactly was the Soviet Union a serious threat to the US,
particularly in 1947? The country was devastated by the war; some regions suffered from
hunger, for goodness' sake; tens of millions were dead or maimed; the worked force was
depleted as million of young men were killed, so the economic burden fell on the shoulders of
women and teenagers; the cost of housing of people left homeless by the war was staggering;
the cost of caring for orphan children, wounded and invalids – ditto. In contrast, the
United States was getting fatter by the minutes having benefited enormously from the war in
Europe.
The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack the
US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated as
early as in 1945. No doubts the Soviet leadership was aware of such plans. The Soviets,
having witnessed a demonstration staged for their benefits in Japans of the power of nuclear
weapons, did everything with one purpose in mind: to prevent an attack, which they were in no
position to withstand. Needless to say, the USSR didn't have nuclear weapons at that time but
even after it had acquired them, it didn't quite catch up with the US in terms on number
until the very end.
It's fair to say that the Soviet Union was never ever a thereat to the US. On the
contrary, the US was a threat to the Soviet Union from the fist till the last day of its
existence, as it remains a treat to Russia today. The problems with the Americans, even the
most reasonable of them (not at all difficult to appear on today's insane background), is
that they don't question the entire narrative they are fed but only the bits of it.
@MAGAnotMISA
"ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US
attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab
lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again "
– Hard to disagree with your statement. And who could forget the amazing care of the
Jewish State for the White Helmets known for their cooperation with other "moderate"
terrorists: https://gellerreport.com/2018/07/israel-syria-jordan.html/
Israel Evacuates 800 of Syria's White Helmets and Their Families to Jordan
The Israel Defense Forces said it engaged in the "out of the ordinary" gesture due to
the "immediate risk" to the lives of the civilians, as Russian-backed regime forces closed
in on the area. It stressed that it was not intervening in the ongoing fighting in
Syria.
The Jordanian government, which has consistently refused to accept Syrian refugees in
recent years, said an exception was made in this case as the United Kingdom, Canada and
Germany agreed to take the 800 White Helmet rescuers and their families.
Germany's Bild newspaper reported that a convoy of dozens of buses crossed the Syrian
border into Israel late Saturday, and were escorted to the Jordanian border by Israeli
police and UN forces.
A lot of the rejoicing in the pro-Putin camp seems to be based on the idea that this somehow
benefits Putin but I don't think it does. He is still irreversibly bogged down in Syria.
@renfro
Netanyahu is telling the idiotic Israeli public what they want to hear. Let's not forget that
there are elections due on 9 April.
You can hardly expect a politician to tell the public that if they so much as launch a
missile against Damascus airport, the airport of Tel Aviv will be bombed in return. The days
when the Israelis could do as they wished in Syria and Lebanon are gone.
"Organ theft, staged attacks: UN panel details White Helmets' criminal activities, media
yawns," by Eva Bartlett.
"[During] a more than one-hour-long panel on the White Helmets at the United Nations on
December 20 the irrefutable documentation was presented on the faux-rescue group's
involvement in criminal activities, which include organ theft, working with terrorists --
including as snipers -- staging fake rescues, thieving from civilians, and other
non-rescuer behaviour.
a Syrian civilian, Omar al-Mustafa, is cited as stating: "I saw them (White Helmets)
bring children who were alive, put them on the floor as if they had died in a chemical
attack."
In my own visits to eastern Ghouta towns last April and May, residents likewise spoke of
organ theft, staged rescues, the White Helmets working with Jaysh al-Islam, while an Aleppo
man likewise described them as thieves who steal from civilians, not rescuers.
Four days after the UN panel, to my knowledge, not a single corporate media outlet has
covered the event and its critical contents.
This is in spite of the fact that the Western corporate media has been happy to
propagandize about the White Helmets for years, and to attack those of us who dare to
present testimonies and evidence from on the ground in Syria which contradicts the official
narrative.
@DESERT
FOX "The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep
state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where
the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it , when
every thinking American knows that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911!"
The number of victims of 9/11 in NYC are way above 3000. Cancers and so on just don't get
counted. BTW, it is not from the dust. It is from the small nuclear bombs in the 2 buildings.
The 3rd building was only explosives.
@jilles
dykstra "Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?"
– He is certainly endangering himself and his parasitic state by the silly ideas of
mythological choseness.
Let's hope that the more intelligent Soviet Jews (as compared to the mediocre pool of the
pre-Soviet Israelis) take pains to explain the former salesman the stupidity of military
confrontation with Iran/Russia.
As for the US-dwelling zionists' stupidity it is irredeemable.
The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack
the US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated
as early as in 1945.
@Bragadocious
What the hell is up with these dysfunctional Brits anyway? With their empire thankfully long
gone, their society in tatters, and a Muslim mayor running majority-minority London, they
think they can get the US to take on Iran for them? Spare me! This "special relationship" has
got to end. The Brits must be under the thumb of the Zionists even more than is the USA. And
their sad monarchy belongs in the dustbin of history.
@Tony
H. George Kennan's attitude towards Russia had evolved throughout the 70s-90s, but this
evolution has been carefully obscured by the ziocon warriors and other war-profiteers using
the ZUSA resources for their personal enrichment:
With the end of the Cold War, Kennan continued to emphasize the limits of American power
and the need for restraint in the exercise of it.
He lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war and
characteristically aimed to influence the role that the United States should play in the
new world circumstances.
He objected to plans for North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion and to what he saw
as exploitation of Russian weakness.
@annamaria
THis is that GELLER who has been riling up ant Muslim hysteria in US She has been co hosting
the islamophobes and has been renting spaces for add against Jihad
@Michael
Kenny Like you are irreversibly bogged down in between your legs looking for Bush's WMD,
Obama's gas, Netanyhu's water source , Rothschild's oil,Bolton's nooses around himself,Weekly
Standard's lost child FDD and confused Sheldon's diaper.
!
@Alfred
Agree that many have died and are dying from cancer caused by the asbestos and other
materials in the dust, in my opinion the WTC towers were destroyed by direct energy weapons
plus micro nukes and WTC buildings 3,4,5,and 6 were destroyed by direct energy weapons and
WTC 7 was destroyed by conventional explosives, and there were 7 WTC buildings destroyed in
total.
Check the site Drjudywood.com and read her book Where Did The Towers Go and watch her
videos on youtube, she is a scientist and very credible and it is from her that I got the
directed energy weapons theory. There were no planes used and the planes that were seen were
holograms and for an explanation of this see John Lears videos on youtube, John Lear is the
son of William Lear the designer of the Lear Jet and John was a commercial pilot and his
videos on 911 explain why no planes were used.
Zionist Israel and the zionist controlled deep state did 911.
@jilles
dykstra It's just what you said, he's keeping a low profile and staying inside on advice
of his security. They're probably worried about snipers in ahigh rise somewhere.
It's been fun listening to (((NPR))) try to spin military withdrawal as a bad thing without
actually saying as much. "Trump's facing critics in his own party," "here are some Kurds
bitching," "General McProcurer is really pissed," "Chikkenhauk Epsteinbergwitzbaum sez it's
the end of the world," etc.
No rationality, no credibility decision (Syria withdrawal).
Most variables are missing. Trump is insignificant but as a figurehead. At least a few
layers, the correlations and "secret" deals with Israel, Turkey, IS, Kurds, France, the UK,
let's not forget Russia are missing. The commoner, deplorable, are lead by the nose, our
middle class bread scribes are doing the herding by shifting the attention, and building an
exit of face saving on what they omit to pull in the open.
No value in this "News" and "Christmas present" at all, but more of deceit of a global
ruling class in the shadows. It is called smarts, to deceive the rest of the dumb (in the
eyes of the elites) masses, it is relevant to call out our elites on not smart enough to
think over the long term.
Who of a building presence of outliers can they still deceive?
@Sarah
Toga "Death and taxes" for countries translates to "war and bankruptcy." Maybe we'll get
lucky and hit the latter before we kill everyone in the former.
@Realist
That's more like Erdogan's problem with Russia. Russian coastal defense system K-300P
Bastion-P in Crimea is perfectly capable of making Bosporus and Dardanelles straits much
wider. However crazy Erdogan is, he is well aware of that.
.local sources told Al Jazeera and Turkey's state-run Anadolu Agency --
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Tuesday that Ankara and Washington
agreed to complete withdrawal of the YPG forces from Manbij before the US pulls out of
Syria.
He added the US agreed to take back weapons given to the YPG.
Syrian government forces 'enter' Kurdish-controlled Manbij region
Trucks carrying regime forces and equipment, and armoured vehicles have arrived in the
region, sources say.
@follyofwar
Actually Brits think their country is doing just great. But yeah, the "special relationship"
should be scuttled. We face a bigger threat from British jihadis than any Iranians anywhere.
Richard Reid is sitting in a federal Supermax but I don't think any Iranians are.
Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives. And if anything
goes wrong, the Brits can distance themselves and blame it on "the Yanks." A win-win.
@Svigor
It is really funny to see "peace-loving" liberals trying not to look like warmongers that
they are. NPR is not alone in attempting this sleight of hand: NYT, CNN, WaPo, and others of
their ilk are desperately trying to appear peace-loving while promoting wars that benefit MIC
and Israel. Hypocrisy at its most awkward. The only good thing is, they are forced to show
their true colors.
@m___
Well you know, that perception of yours re how the real world really works is, actually,
positive and optimistic.
If if I get you correct, you believe/feel/think there IS the "overclass" (for a lack of
better word) which rules the world. They are hidden, all powerful, competent, on the same
page and malevolent re us , the common folks.
I am afraid that's not the case.
I believe/feel/think there is no such overclass.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of power
who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth. The
malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.
And, gets worse, actually.
In this particular case I think the decision was made in a spur of a moment. Pure Emperor
whim ,if you will.
On top of it, we still haven't seen any actual move on the ground.
And, even if those up to 2000 men do pull out, what about CIA/special forces/contractors
bunch?
And, even better, those 2000 and more can return in 48 hours if the Emperor decides
otherwise. In a spur of a moment too.
Anyone so happy here commenting this .thing has been following what's really been
happening with North Korea?
What exactly changed from that fateful meeting between the Emperor and the .Cult Leader?
Let's summarize: the very point of all that was stopping and rolling back NK capability for
long range nuclear strike.
So .any "rolling" happened? Anything?
I don't think so, but, more than happy to be proven wrong. Proven, mind you.
The only important, and sad actually, is how we all got into the stage when a tweet by
that fellow can agitate us so much.
Mice and just a whiff of cheese over the cage.
They really got us where they wanted. And those "they" aren't even that smart.
Just great.
"Trump is retreating from Syria – and from his pro-Israel Jewish conservative
voters. If that decision is a harbinger of other strategic moves distancing him from Israel's
security, much of his remaining Jewish support will fall off a cliff"
"The United States refuse to fight for the transnational financiers"
As soon as he entered the White House, Donald Trump was careful to surround himself with
three senior military officers with enough authority to reposition the armed forces.
Michael Flynn, John Kelly and especially James Mattis, have since left or are in the
process of leaving. All three men are great soldiers who together had opposed their
hierarchy during Obama's presidency. They did not accept the strategy implemented by
ambassador John Negroponte for the creation of terrorist groups tasked with stirring up a
civil war in Iraq. All three stood with President Trump to annul Washington's support for
the jihadists.
The Pentagon project for the last seventeen years in the "Greater Middle East" will not
happen. Conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, it was aimed at destroying all the state
structures in the region, with the exception of Israël, Jordan and Lebanon. This plan,
which began in Afghanistan, spread as far as Libya, and is still under way, will come to an
end on Syrian territory.
It is no longer acceptable that US armies fight with taxpayers' funds for the sole
financial interests of global financiers, even if they are US citizens.
The Bush Jr. and Obama administrations shoulder the entire responsibility for this war
[in Syria]. They were the ones who planned it and realised it within the framework of a
unipolar world .
Afghanistan's misery began during the Carter presidency. National Security Advisor,
Zbigniew Brzeziński, called on the Muslim Brotherhood and Israël to launch a
campaign of terrorism against the Communist government. Terrified, the government appealed
to the Soviets to maintain order. The result was a fourteen-year war, followed by a civil
war, and then followed by the Anglo-US invasion.
After forty years of uninterrupted destruction, President Trump states that US military
presence is not the solution for Afghanistan, it's the problem.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of
power who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth.
The malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.
@Realist
When Erdogan's military had shot down the Russian jet, Turkey paid for it rapidly with an
economic squeeze. Russian tourism to Turkey was shut down and green grocer exports to Russia
were subjected to intense scrutiny/inspection and nearly halted. One could say the Turks are
still feeling the effect, the impact was immediate and probably there hasn't been a full
recovery to some of the businesses that had been damaged. Erdogan tucked his tail and played
nice with Putin after all but he is no dependable ally of anyone, he's screwed everyone he'd
ever done business with insofar as the M.E. regional game. The main problem with Turkey for
Russia is the Erdogan regime's Salafi outlook (to say the leadership is sympathetic to
al-Qaida would be an understatement.) Erdogan may have promised to 'neutralize' the Idlib
extremists but he won't, he can't, in fact he doesn't dare, it is estimated there are upwards
of 1,000 cells established in Turkey. How that plays out is anyone's guess but my money is on
the idea he'll shove the the Idlib extremists off on the Kurds as a Turkish military proxy
and cross Putin in the process (the USA won't mind this at all and in fact CIA Ops division
might reward it.)
@AnonFromTN"The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors."
Exactly. The liars, frauds, gatekeepers, Hillary-bots, and every brand of stupid in between
have been flushed into the open. For example, anyone who still admires Chomsky should take
note:
Aaron MatéVerified account @aaronjmate · Dec 24
Update: Chomsky was sent my Q & this is his response. He favors keeping US troops in
Syria as a holding operation until a final settlement w/ Russia-Assad that could guarantee
Kurds' safety. With US pulling out now, he argues that all leverage is lost to avoid a
Turkish assault:
"What deal with the Russians (who right now are making cozy deals with Turkey)? And a
deal with Assad, the main mass murderer in Syria – – who can in any event do
nothing to deter Turkey.
In fact, in the longer term there should be a deal crucially involving Russia and with
Assad, with some kind of guarantees (for what they are worth) to preserve at least some
limited protection for the Kurds. But that's the longer term. This is now. For now, the
sole deterrent to a Turkish assault is a small US contingent confined to Kurdish areas, as
a holding operation for a possible longer term settlement along the lines just
indicated."
@AnonFromTN"The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors."
Exactly. The liars, frauds, gatekeepers, Hillary-bots, and every brand of stupid in between
have been flushed into the open. For example, anyone who still admires Chomsky should take
note:
Aaron MatéVerified account @aaronjmate · Dec 24
Update: Chomsky was sent my Q & this is his response. He favors keeping US troops in
Syria as a holding operation until a final settlement w/ Russia-Assad that could guarantee
Kurds' safety. With US pulling out now, he argues that all leverage is lost to avoid a
Turkish assault:
"What deal with the Russians (who right now are making cozy deals with Turkey)? And a
deal with Assad, the main mass murderer in Syria – – who can in any event do
nothing to deter Turkey.
In fact, in the longer term there should be a deal crucially involving Russia and with
Assad, with some kind of guarantees (for what they are worth) to preserve at least some
limited protection for the Kurds. But that's the longer term. This is now. For now, the
sole deterrent to a Turkish assault is a small US contingent confined to Kurdish areas, as
a holding operation for a possible longer term settlement along the lines just
indicated."
I find it interesting that Drudge has had almost nothing about the Syria withdrawal, or the
fallout Giraldi describes. I heard far more about it by tuning in to NPR.
That's more like Erdogan's problem with Russia. Russian coastal defense system K-300P
Bastion-P in Crimea is perfectly capable of making Bosporus and Dardanelles straits much
wider.
It's not that simple. Any attempt to take control of the of the Bosporus would make it at
least temporarily impassable.
@follyofwar
The real change will come should ever US military personnel realise that true patriotism
would compel them not to serve, to sabotage equipment and even resort to fragging. Perhaps
Incitatus could give instructions on how some could pull off a "Corporal Klinger" in order to
evade service.
@Carlton
Meyer Good clip. High points for LULZ were "if we're fighting Assad doesn't that help
ISIS? And if we're fighting ISIS doesn't that help Assad?" and "now you know why people get
their news from Youtube."
@Bragadocious
It is business as usual. I remember when GWB was having some difficulty selling the war on
Iraq prior to the invasion. War criminal Tony Blair very eloquently addressed both houses in
the US and closed the sale. I watched it live with a tough old former Marine friend who was
actually moved to tears when he realised that the war would be going ahead. What hope is
there for nations that have yet to hold to account such vermin as Blair, GWB, Howard etc?
@follyofwar
The Brits were the original Rothschild ass-muppets. Before there was the Fed, there was the
Bank of England. Before there was the Senate, there was Parliament. And before there was Wall
Street, there was the City of London. Hell, without Britain, Israel wouldn't even exist!
I'm not putting down ordinary British people, who tend to be very nice. I'm talking about
their horrible ruling class, which is just rotten to the core.
@Realist
Taking into account long-range missiles, impassability of those straits is not such a great
military problem. But the disappearance of a large chunk if Istanbul (the US would call it
"collateral damage") would be a serious problem for Turkey.
I don't think it would ever come to that: Erdogan is a cautious bastard. His whole stint
with buying Russian C-400 was undertaken to make sure he is not "democratically" bombed by
those who bring democracy on the heads of aborigines in half-a-ton TNT installments and then
bitterly complain that those aborigines are ungrateful.
@Bragadocious
To be fair, the "Brits", as in the British people, bear the same responsibility as do the
"Americans", as in the American people. Granted, a great many voters in both nations are
quite utterly stupid but it might be more accurate to refer to The City and to Wall St as
being the guilty ones.
Grunts, the ones actually doing the fighting and dying, will typically refer to one who
speaks out in support of war, yet has avoided active military service, as a
chickenshit and not a chickenhawk.
So it's probably safe to say, wikiquote needs to be updated.
@never-anonymous
Your average American general isn't interested in America's welfare. He's interested in the
defensive industry because he plans to retire early from the US army and get rich lobbying
for defensive companies. People like this tend to be good at climbing the rank ladder because
they are completely self-serving, and they are a genuine problem for the the US when they get
to the top and claim the ear of a US president. All they do is promote more war to make their
future employers rich, who then provide a quid pro quo by hiring these disgusting generals
afterwards.
"though one has to be concerned that there might be some secret side deals with Israel or
Turkey that could actually result in more attacks on Syria and on the Kurds. "
@Partisangirl
#Israel murdered this Syrian soldier on #christmas. First lieutenant Gabriel Ali Raya won't
be going home to his family. Yet fools keep believing Israeli lie that they are targeting
Iran while it's bombing #Syria.
This is most certainly good news if true, but lets not forget they're still poking at Russia,
poking at China, still all over Africa, still stirring trouble in Latin America.
Who knows if they may be about to send in private mercenaries from Blackwater into Syria. Not
to mention all the money and weapons we give the Israelis-Saudis so they'll still be stirring
shit in Syria and elsewhere, all that American money could buy Israel lots of mercenaries to
do the same thing in Syria.
The entire MIC has gotten out of control, money buys congress, they have lots of money.
Assuming Trump has any real power or actually cares, he should be trying to get the "defense"
industries into doing something other than building weapons of war, maybe put them to work in
technology or health or something that benefits humanity, gets America back to competing with
Asia, instead of just killing folks.
As long as these "people" are making tons of money building weapons to kill, that is what
they will do, wherever it may be. War shouldn't a business.
I guess we just have to wait and see, I'll believe it when I see it.
DECEMBER 21, 2018 It's About Time for the U.S. to Exit Syria and Afghanistan
The final resolution of the U.S.-led war in Syria must be determined by Syrians
themselves. All foreign forces must recognize and respect the sovereignty of the Syrian
people and their legal representatives.
@RobinG
100% of the planes sent by Israel have returned to base damage free.
After Action Review [AAR]:
-- Assad' s forces definitely expended a significant number of very expensive
interceptors.
-- They may, or may not, have shot down one or more less expensive standoff weapons launched
by Israel.
-- Iranian forces in Syria were hit and damaged (TBD on repairable vs. destroyed).
All objective analysts will score today's engagement as at least a minor win for the
IDF. Stand by for the non-objective, histrionic, Pallywood, Taqiyya artists' inevitable
attempts to misrepresent the events.
_____
The most critical question is, "What AA systems were active?"
The S-300 system, slated for eventual turnover to Syrian forces, has significant training
requirements. There are still months of training to be done. So, odds are the S-300 and S-400
systems in theatre, under exclusive Russian control, stayed off.
Much more limited systems such as S-200, Pantsir, and earlier generations are beatable if
they are accurately located during planning and shown the respect they deserve. These systems
have one shootdown of an F-16 variant that was too low and may have had a serious mechanical
failure in countermeasures.
The true decision points are still months away.
-- Will Russia ever turn an S-300 system over to Syrian control?
-- If so, will Assad pay the cash burn rate of ~$0.5 to $1.0 million per S-300 class
interceptor?
It is hard to believe that Assad will further bankrupt his nation and starve his children
to defend the Iranian, al-Hezbollah rocket forces being targeted by Israel.
May 5, 2017 Syrian War And The Battle For Golan Heights – Genie Oil & Gas Exposed!
The battle for Golan Heights in Syria will soon be under way and in this video Dan Dicks
of Press For Truth exposes the Genie Oil and Gas Company and everyone on their advisory
board.
I'm as happy with the withdrawal from Syria as anyone here, but "stay tuned" is probably
good advice so we don't get our hopes up too much. They may have moved them out of harm's way
in preparation for initiating more mischief somewhere else.
@A123
Troll #A123 confirms, ISRAEL KILLS ON CHRISTMAS
Following ancient pattern of Jews attacking on Holy Days.
Pantsir-S2 SAM system of #Syria Arab Air Defense Force launched eight 57E6-E surface to
air missiles at Delilah cruise missiles launched by F-16Is of 107sq "Knights of the Orange
Tail Squadron" flying from #Hatzerim AB.
Donald Trump is already under extreme pressure coming from all directions to reverse his
decision to leave Syria and it is quite possible that he will either fold completely or
bend at least a bit.
Trump is dealing with the lethal crowd who orchestrated 9/11, so keeping this in mind, the
Syria withdrawal decision could conceivably be taken out of his hands using (another) False
Flag,this time targeting Iran (and sacrificing a few thousand American servicemen in the
Middle East) or alternatively, using covert action in the US, aimed directly at substituting
Trump for Pence.
In an ethics free zone, combined with the enormous hubris of the maniacs running the
Empire, possibilities have to extend this far.
@A123
"100% of the planes sent by Israel have returned to base damage free."
– does this mean that you are ready to abandon the annoying quetching about "Jewish
eternal victimhood" and "Jewish incomparable suffering?"
And how is the Jewish State cooperation with Ukrainian neo-Nazi going on?
The first ever Jewish prime-minister of Ukraine Mr. Groysman has been quite effective in
keeping with the ongoing restoration of Nazism and banderism in the Kaganat of Nuland (former
Ukraine). Guess the main local financier of the neo-Nazi, an Israeli/Ukrainian citizen
Kolomojsky, is preparing for a special award from Knesset and AIPAC for his selfless service
to the ideas of zionism/nazism.
@RobinGPlease observe . as predicted, . the Taqiyya Trolls are now attempting to deploy
histrionics to distract from The Truth.
Serious questions:
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hezbollah forces in Syria take off for Christian holidays?
No?
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hamas forces in Gaza disrespect their own religion by launching
offensive, border assaults every Friday? Yes?
-- What militarily sound reason is there to give a free pass to violent Iranian forces that
do not respect any religious traditions or holidays? None?
The bottom line is pretty simple.
If Iran was not violent, there would be no military action against them on Christmas or
any other day. As long as Iran is violent, their Taqiyya supporters cannot credibly whinge
about countries defending themselves against Iranian violence.
@Digital
Samizdat What "ruling class". As ruling classes go, especially in a powerful country, the
British ruling class wasn't too bad till about 1900. Now the pseudomeritocracy scrambling to
make sense in a much less powerful and important country hardly deserves the description
"ruling class" at all. Indeed universal suffrage and the devastation of WW1 and the Great
Depression may have predictably doomed it years ago.
@NoseytheDuke
What do you make of the excuse for Howard (though Malcolm Fraser wouldn't have conceded it!!)
that he wasn't critical to the war happening and that only one Australian soldier was killed
(by his own hand, presumably accidentally)? 2003 was, after all, a bit early to be looking to
China for Australia's comfortable place in the world.
@renfro
Israel is attacking Lebanon and Syria . it is threatening other countries as well in between
for lending voices to issues like nuclear treaties with Iran. It has earlier stolen
passports, it has forged passports, it has assassinated leaders who were at that time in
third country. Now criticizing these activities will be nothing but expression of anti
semitism.
WTF wrong with these snake charmers of enormous linguistic variability ? That what it is.
They have tongues and they know how to coin new words .
Indeed it is, but the cacophony Trump's announcement raised seems genuine enough.
There's something about this whole affair that instills (at least in me) a vague sense
that Trump, having given up on a 2nd term, is going to get whatever he can via surprise
Presidential Policy Announcements as long as he lasts in office. It's how he ran his campaign
and almost certainly the only way he can get anything he said he wanted to do done.
Keep his detractors off-balance with a sufficiently constant stream of announcements that
their heads haven't quite stopped spinning before the next one comes out.
To that end, keeping the barking mad ideologues around him on the payroll makes sense.
They add to the noise that serves to make the announcement appear reasonable, whereas nuanced
argument would undermine his policies even when they're fundamentally right.
So, I'm staying tuned. We may see lots more coming from the same place.
Macron not on skis this year.
My idea is not fear of snipers, but fear of Macron being surrounded by Yellow Vest
skiers.
Honnecker's vacations were staying on a government estate, of course completely closed to the
public.
Even there, when he went for a walk, a guard a hundred metres before him and another behind
him.
Advertising his impopularity by completely closing a piste temporarily for just Macron and
some guards probably was seen as not a smart move.
@NoseytheDuke
Well, after, if I remember well, a seven year investigation a devastating report was
published about B-liars' war in GB.
In the Netherlands a somewhat similar report was published about Dutch complicity, the
David's report, blaming prime minister Balkenende at the time, and his minister of foreign
affairs then, De Hoop Scheffer, later Secretary of NATO.
None of the three is behind bars, true.
Nevertheless, they were exposed as war criminals.
I wonder if it is realistic to expect more, the crimes were political.
If Blair and the two Dutch could have refused, I wonder.
@byrresheim
If it was horrible is a matter of opinion, I see it as liberation.
Horrible regime, the shah's
It was possible because the USA had been driven out of Vietnam, could not afford another war.
The Smith Richardson Foundation was founded by billionaire heir to the Vicks fortune, H.
Smith Richardson In 1973, the founder's son, Randolph Richardson – a free market
fundamentalist and long-time patron of neoconservative ideologue Irving Kristol
– inherited the organization.
Recipients of funding from the Smith Richardson Foundation include a who's who of
neoconservative and militaristic right-wing institutions.
The Fusion GPS' bunch and Chris Steele are not the only people subverting the democratic
process in the US:
Recent hacked documents have revealed an international network of politicians,
journalists, academics, researchers and military officers, all engaged in highly deceptive
covert propaganda campaigns funded by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO),
NATO, Facebook and hardline national security institutions.
This "network of networks", as one document refers to them, centers around an ironically
named outfit called the Integrity Initiative. And it is all overseen by the Institute for
Statecraft, which has operated under a veil of secrecy.
Where is the US Intelligence Community when the foreign nationals infiltrate election
complain in the US?
Bracey-Lane is a 20-something British citizen He appeared out of nowhere to work in Iowa
as a field organizer for the Bernie Sanders campaign for president.
"I spent a year working, saving all my money, just thought I was gonna go on a two month
road trip from Seattle to New York and I thought, you know what? I'm gonna stay and work
for the Bernie Sanders campaign," Bracey-Lane told a reporter for AFP on January 27,
2016.
However An Institute for Statecraft document on "roles and relevant experience" of the
outfit's "expert team" notes that Bracey-Lane conducted a "special study of Russian
interference in the US electoral process." The document does not make clear when that study
was conducted, however, it is listed directly next to its author's history of work with the
Bernie campaign.
The Integrity Initiative (oh, irony!) has been also busy with subverting the democratic
process in Spain and the UK:
The Integrity Initiative waged a successful covert campaign to destroy the appointment
of Pedro Baños to Director of Spain's National Security Department by carry[ing] out
the hit job through a hand-picked "cluster" of Spanish politicians and operatives to flood
social media and sympathetic outlets with messages demonizing Baños.
The Integrity Initiative appears to have employed the same tactics to smear left-wing
journalists and political figures across the West, including the leader of the UK's Labour
Party, Jeremy Corbyn.
According to David Miller, professor of political sociology in the school of policy
studies at the University of Bristol and the director of the Organization for Propaganda
Studies, the Integrity Initiative "appears to be a military directed push."
@wayfarer
Not sure, but we are home to Kirtland Air Force Base and Sandia National Labs so I guess
anything is possible. I just know it has been brutal all fall and winter. Starts out with
massive chemtrailing and ends up with sky completely darkened.
My spidy sense is also tingling, but I am in awe that no one seem's to notice, no one
seem's to care. Like you, I feel the curtain is about to be pulled on the final act. God help
us all.
@Realist
I've read that Mr. Trump abrupted decided to pull out of Syria after a phone call with
Erdogan. He wasn't about to confer with Mattis, Pompeo, or Bolton as they would have all
objected. Trump cannot afford to be the president who allowed Turkey to leave NATO and align
with Russia. It's all about geo-politics.
Too bad that crybaby Netanyahu doesn't like it. Israel has nowhere else to go and needs US
support to even exist. The Kurds will be sacrificed, but Turkey is much more important. Trump
must pull out the US troops ASAP as they nothing but sitting ducks – like those 400 or
so Marines who were blown up during the Lebanese civil war during the Reagan Admin. My
biggest concern is that they will be attacked with many casualties while in country, forcing
Trump to stay.
"Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a 'childish moronic mentally
unstable malignant narcissist' who is 'committing Treason' against the United States."
He didn't just play a meathead on TV, he became one in real life.
@follyofwar
" Trump cannot afford to be the president who allowed Turkey to leave NATO and align with
Russia. It's all about geo-politics. "
What makes you think Turkey is still in NATO ?
And what is NATO ?
Both Merkel and Macron say they want an EU army.
An army for what, many here in Europe wonder.
Attacking the country that keeps the Germans warm in winter and German industry going ?
@Realist
Did you read Article V of NATO treaty?
Here it is:
Article V
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America
shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an
armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective
self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the
Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other
Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and
maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be
reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council
has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and
security.
To translate it into plain English, if one member is attacked and another member decides
to send the victim pampers, that other member would be perfectly within its rights. The US
made 100% sure it has no obligations whatsoever under that treaty. Not to mention that when
the US does have obligations, it simply breaks the treaty (the deal with Iran being the
latest glaring example).
@Wizard
of Oz A great legal mind such as your own would surely know that under US law any person
involved in any way in a crime resulting in the deaths of victims is held to be equally
responsible. Just being a wheelman or a lookout is enough to be found to be as equally guilty
as the triggerman. All forces involved in the war crimes of the invasions of Iraq and
Afghanistan, other than the US, were token forces whose role was as much to legitimise the US
invasions as to have much material impact. Howard's (and Blair's) excuse that it was due to
faulty intel is an insult to those who serve honourably and legitimately in ASIO.
String them up, I say, and you Sir would demean yourself should you attempt to defend
them.
@Anonymous
You are seeing the world in black and white, whereas in reality it has various shades of
gray. The Deep State is not monolithic. Every snake in that pit wants to control not only us
"deplorables", but the other snakes, as well. While all those greedy rothschilds, soroses,
and adelsons beat even Devil himself in their lack of morals, some placed their bets on the
corrupt mad witch, while others on the orange clown. Some snakes are smart enough to
understand that to keep their loot they need the protection of a strong US state. Otherwise
other thieves would gladly steal their ill-gotten riches.
The presidents are frauds in a sense that they are puppets, but not in a sense that they
all have the same puppet master. Say, Nixon put the country ahead of the Empire and
extricated us from the Vietnam quagmire. There is a chance that Trump (i.e., the faction of
the Deep State that betted on him) also wants to save America as a country by acknowledging
the losses of the Empire and acting accordingly. We'll see soon enough.
Israel behind civilian planes ( this time in Lebanon)attacked Syria.
criticizing this piece of Israeli behavior is known as anti semitism according to Jew and
the jew slave Congress Senate , Diet , Parliament , ( USA Germany UK )
. If Saddam were Jewish , his pals were Likud and the citizen worshipped in synagogue ,
criticism against 1990 invasion of Kuwait would have been called anti semitism punishable by
jail .
@foolisholdman
There were cases of real Soviet aggression, although, contrary to the assertion of Western
propaganda, much fewer than there were cases of the US aggression. To give you an example,
invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was Soviet aggression at its stupidest. The US invasion of
the same Afghanistan in 2001 was equally stupid. One can argue that it was even more stupid,
given that Soviet example preceded it. Only a hopeless moron steps into a trap knowing that
it is a trap.
However disgusting the US foreign policy was and still is, the USSR was no knight in
shining armor, either.
@foolisholdman
Sure Finland Czechoslovakia Hungary Romania Ukraine Poland Germany Belarus Armenia Azerbaijan
Estonia Latvia Bulgaria Georgia Yugoslavia Lithuania Moldova Chechnia etc.
@DESERT
FOX September 11, 2016 Al Qaeda: The Data Base
Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the
House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of
international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas,
arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
@AnonFromTN
Try again. Maybe 1979 was foolish, since "invasion" was manufactured.
As Zbig Brzezinski admitted, the Soviet action was produced by the CIA support to
anti-Russian Jihadi terrorism, not the other way round. Basically CIA funded terrorism to
"give USSR its own Vietnam." His interview is online.
@geokat62
geo warmly offered Fran: 'Welcome to the dark side, Fran."
Hey G.D.L.-robed Brother geokat!
As you likely are aware, the Syrian ballistic missile system gave 14 of 16 Israeli F-16
(dark) missiles aimed at Damascus outskirt a bright & shiny welcome.
But nonetheless, please refer to Haaretz article below, and Russian knowledge of Israel's
endangering two civilian airplane flight trajectories.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to
make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur .
No such Treaty as approval was ever given by the Senate. Soros sock-puppet Obama lied when
he claimed to have extra-constitutional powers to bind future administrations. Remember
Obama's promise, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"? There were plenty of
warning signs that Obama was a liar, so no one should be surprised that he lied about
JOCPA.
Trump did not violate or break anything , because the non-ratified, non-treaty did
not meet Constitutional minimums.
__________
Putin supporters should understand this as Russia has an identical issue in play. The
1950′s transfer of Crimea to Ukraine did not meet Russian constitutional standards.
Thus, identical to Trump's treatment of JOCPA, Putin is free to ignore the
unconstitutional acts of the prior Krushchev / Vorashilov administration.
@Agent76
Agree, and would add that AL CIADA ie ISIS is a creation of the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6
and NATO and Robin Cook was killed shortly after he made those statements, who benefits?
@Miro23
"Trump is dealing with the lethal crowd who orchestrated 9/11 "
Well this line of thought raises some serious question: (1) Why did Trump run for
president in the first place? (2) Why did he run on a platform of open defiance to the "deep
state" only to occupy a position of intimidating powerlessness? (3) Why does he not fight
back by investigating 9/11 or merely threatening to do so? (4) Why does he not use the power
of the "presidential bully pulpit" against the "deep state"? (5) If he was sincere during the
campaign, why did the "lethal crowd" not deploy a "lone nut" against him before the election?
(With so much at stake, why would they risk letting a sincere person anywhere near the levers
of power in the first place?) (6) How could a reasonable person be coerced into a course of
action (in the realm of "foreign policy") that seems to be leading to nuclear war/planetary
extinction? (7) If he was sincere about putting America first, then failing everything else,
why doesn't he simply resign?
@A123
Legally speaking, you are right. Not to mention that Obama was proven to be a liar in many
other things. But withdrawing from the Iran deal damaged the US credibility even among its
European vassals.
@AnonFromTN
I've got good news for you. Sometimes the world/truth is really black and white. And in this
case, certainly is: Trump is a fraud , has always been and will always be.
And as far as I know , "American" presidents all have the same master, which by the way,is
the same master that Putin and his bunch of corrupt oligarchs serve.. Of course there are
exceptions Nixon did try to fight against his master but I presume you know what happened to
the poor man. Poor but lucky. He died in his bed.
You got something right: "We'll see soon enough.".
But let me tell you the future: there will be no withdraw from Syria UNLESS the king of
Israel agrees.
And if the King agrees, it is because, he has other objectives which his puppets, Trump,
Putin, Macron will certainly try to implement.
But don't worry, the deep state and the "experts" will always give you "arguments" so you
can keep seeing the world in "various shades of gray".
@anonymoys
Agree with two things. First, Nixon was luckier than Kennedy, he was only forced to resign,
whereas Kennedy was murdered. Second, the same forces were responsible for both events.
But these dark forces are not all-powerful. The world is more complicated than you paint
it. There are different factions at work in the US and Russian politics, and these factions
are doing their best to cut each others' throats, which is a good thing. We should sincerely
wish success to both teams.
Say, many Russian oligarchs (BTW, oligarchs everywhere are criminals, in Russia, in the
US, in Europe, etc.) are likely Zionists, but there are other forces supporting Putin's
throne. That's why Russia screwed up the Israeli plan to break up Syria into a bunch of
warring impotent Bantustans, using Islamic bandits, some paid scum, some just incredibly
stupid "true believers". In this Russia teamed up with the Israeli arch-enemy Iran. Judging
by the Imperial tantrums in the US, which reached a hysterical pitch lately, Zionists are
unhappy with Russian and Chinese stances. So, there is hope for humanity yet.
"During war there are no civilians," that's what "Yossi," an Israeli military (IDF)
training unit leader simply stated during a round of questioning on day two of the Rachel
Corrie trials, held in Haifa's District Court earlier this week. "When you write a
[protocol] manual, that manual is for war," he added.
@NoseytheDuke
I bow to your superior knowledge of American law(s) but do recall the distasteful way in
which one reads of not completely innocent defendants being swept up for plea bargains by
such devices as conspiracy charges. But yes, I'm afraid Howard was at least an accessory
before the fact and I have no doubt it was Howard that JMF had in mind when he looked at me
at an anti Howard government affair in October 2004 and spoke of war criminals who ought to
be tried though I recall thinking at the time that it went a bit far to include Howard, the
hanger on. As one who came to give Howard amoral admiration just for the sustained
determination needed to become a truly successful politician (Cf. F.S. Oliver "The Endless
Adventure" and "In Defence of Politics" by Bernard Crick) I am more critical of him for what
he did and didn't do with his surprise control of the Senate (not so surprising to him
actually by August 2004 polling) including election giveaways that did much to prevent
Keating's superannuation schemes ever leading to relief of the burden of old age pensions or,
worse, the rise of industry funds to, effectively, be a funding arm for (often private school
educated) Labor careerists who will give us 25 years of reduced productivity and unnecessary
retail penalty rates and (at least for a while) reduced shopping hours and availability of
path and radiology .. just e.g. Then maybe the drag from China no longer making our coal and
iron ore super valuable will force changes that recognise we 99 per cent of us are lucky
drones (pending a Merkel influx of a million incompatible refugees anyway, but that I would
not expect from Shorten).
@AnonFromTN
I will suggest that a blanket statement on credibility does not work as a logical construct.
To be accurate, one must define the perspective via the question:
-- Credibility in the eyes of whom?
I observed a significant increase in U.S. credibility among the citizens and governments
of practicing Christian nations of the EU. For example: Poland, Hungary, Austria, and
Italy.
Nations such as China that laughed at and casually rolled "Barak Hussein Obama the
Submissive" also upped their respect for the U.S. when Trump took over. Though, I do concede
that getting over a bar set at 0% (less than Rodney Dangerfield) is pretty easy.
Yes, U.S. National Socialist Democrats [DNC] lost credibility among Establishment Elites
of the NWO/UN Circle of Arrogance. After all, they failed to deliver Hillary Clinton to the
White House. However, DNC credibility among unelected elites at the debauched UN has nothing
to do with U.S. credibility among the civilized people of the world.
Israel did not fire any weapon system at any civilian airplane. It is a lie to say that
they did. Given the air space congestion in the area it is functionally impossible to fly a
combat mission without overlapping a flight route.
The only force that endangered civilian airliners were those firing anti-aircraft
missiles that could hit those planes.
This is why it is highly likely that Russia will never turn over S-300 systems to Syrian
control. Russia wants to sell these systems. Interest will drop to zero if Syrian forces use
the S-300 to shoot down a civilian airliner over another nation such as Lebanon or
Turkey.
@AnonFromTN
"There are different factions at work in the US and these factions are doing their best to
cut each others' throats, which is a good thing. We should sincerely wish success to both
teams."
Seriously? With the exception of perhaps "the wall" and a few other relatively minor
distractive issues (which won't matter very much when the U.S. is a pile of nuclear ash), I
don't see any kind of "faction" offering any serious political opposition whatsoever to
anything of significance that orange clown does. All I see is cheap talk/posturing.
Israel did not fire any weapon system at any civilian airplane.
Strawman.
Nobody said your people fired missiles at a civilian airline. You used civilian
airplanes to hide behind. It is called using human shields – a war crime.
As for Russia handing over control of S-300′s to Syria, I would advise you to
continue to believe that. I look forward to your hubris and arrogance causing you to vanish
in a puff of smoke one day.
blanket statement on credibility does not work as a logical construct
Agree. But you appear to think that a blanket statement on "civilized people of the world"
works as a logical construct. Sorry to disappoint, it does not work, either.
After Trump announced that the US withdraws, every one of the other signatories of JCPOA
(Iran nuclear deal), namely China, France, Germany, EU, Russia, UK, and Iran said that they
will abide by the deal, with Iranian stipulation that if the US attempts any hostile action,
it would consider itself no longer bound by it. To wit, France, Germany, UK, and EU are
subservient pawns of the Empire in most cases.
Iranians explicitly said that the US unilateral withdrawal from this deal shows that it is
useless to negotiate with the US and come to any agreements with it, as the US will likely
break its word any time it finds it convenient. This did a huge damage to the credibility of
the country, no matter how you slice or dice it.
I agree regarding DNC credibility. After they falsified the results of their primaries (as
Wasserman-Schultz resignation right before the convention affirmed), DNC cannot claim any
credibility. Not that they even needed this trick: Sanders proved to be just as much of a
fraud and a piece of shit as the mad witch. However, DNC has nothing to do with it. Obama
administration was supposed to represent the country, not DNC. If the ability of Trump to act
as President depended on the credibility of RNC (which is as low as that of DNC, although
they did not falsify primaries, to the dismay of Deep State), our country is done for.
The President is supposed to be the leader of the country, not just his party. The actions
of both Obama and Trump in the international affairs that are meant for internal consumption
undermine the US more than any act of its avowed enemies.
Fyi, I particularly despise the Zionist GWOT designations, "collateral damage," and the
demonic branding of wartime Prisoners of War as "non-combatants," and exempt from
internationally recognized Geneva Convention treatment while in ZUSA military captivity.
As a veteran who took an August 1970 solemn oath to honor humane treatment of war
prisoners, & post-9/11, am wondering if taking such noble vow was being done throughout
Basic Training posts, stationed across our (argh!) "Homeland."
Really made me sick to see how Sergeant Charles Garner and P.F.C. Lyndi England were held
accountable for their barbaric Abu Ghraib acts, and shortly afterward, the
freak-intellectual, John Yoo, became the distorted administration's Prisoner-Torture High
Priest. (Zigh)
Am wondering in which prosperous U.S. Zionist "career" field has John Yoo landed?
Hm. Perhaps U.R. Comment-Research Specialist can help me here?
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hezbollah forces in Syria take off for Christian holidays?
No?
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hamas forces in Gaza disrespect their own religion by launching
offensive, border assaults every Friday? Yes?
I've got good news for you. Sometimes the world/truth is really black and white. And in
this case, certainly is: Trump is a fraud , has always been and will always be.
we can't be 100% sure yet but it's looking that way
unless that wall starts getting built pronto i don't see any reason to suport him 2020
All right and clear
Pity, that the lot is stained by the dropping-like sterotype about Goebels' "big lie"
Never mind it's of Hitler's labour, not Goebels', but, more important, in Mein Kampf it is
clearly expressed as a warning (beware..) against the chosen-tribe techniques.. The autor
should be learned enough to know better: superficiality or malice?
@A123
You are so desperate that you are looking under the mattress to find your last penny. Why
don't you ask your grandmother to ( Ben Guiron or Gold mare or some WaPo Rubin or KKK-
Krathamer Kristol Kagan ) to find it for you ?
"... On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women, our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign". ..."
"... The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of Mueller's investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for the President's impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20 candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry. ..."
"... Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an international audience. ..."
"... The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very much please Trump's base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. ..."
"... The choice to announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against ISIS and the immediate withdrawal of US troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election. ..."
"... Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military presence in Syria will continue. ..."
"... The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. ..."
"... For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move. Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his friendship to Bibi. ..."
On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women,
our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter,
Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning
US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign".
The reasons for Donald Trump's move are many, but they are mainly driven by US domestic
concerns. The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats
prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had
always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would
somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of
Mueller's investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the
situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for
the President's impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20
candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry.
The combination of these factors has forced Trump to change gears, considering that the
military-industrial-intelligence-media-complex has always been ready to get rid of Trump, even
in favor of a President Pence. The only option available for Trump in order to have a chance of
reelection in 2020 is to undertake a self-promotion tour, a practice in which he has few peers,
and which will involve him repeating his mantra of "Promises Made, Promises Kept". He will list
how he has fought against the fake-news media, suffered internal sabotage, as well as other
efforts (from the Fed, the FBI, and Mueller himself) to hamper his efforts to "Make America
Great Again".
Trump has perhaps understood that in order to be re-elected, he must pursue a simple media
strategy that will have a direct impact on his base. Withdrawing US troops from Syria, and
partly from Afghanistan, serves this purpose. It is an easy way to win with his constituents,
while it is a heavy blow to his fiercest critics in Washington who are against this decision.
Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the
mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to
Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an
international audience.
The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very
much please Trump's base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund
Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. It is not difficult to
understand that the average citizen is fed up with the useless wars in the Middle East, and
Trump's words on immigration resonate with his voters. The more the media, the Democrats and
the deep state criticize Trump on the wall, on the Syria pull out and on shutting down the
government, the more they are campaigning for him.
This is why in order to understand the withdrawal of the United States from Syria it is
necessary to see things from Trump's perspective, even as frustrating, confusing and
incomprehensible that may seem at times.
The difference this time around was that the decision to withdraw US troops from Syria was
Trump's alone, not something imposed on him by the generals that surround him. The choice to
announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against ISIS and the immediate withdrawal of US
troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election.
It is possible that Trump, as is his wont, also wanted to send a message to his alleged
French and British allies present in the northeast of Syria alongside the Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF) and US soldiers. Trump may be now taunting: "Let's see what you can do without the
US!"
It is as if Trump is admonishing these countries in a more concrete way for not lifting
their weight in terms of military spending. Trump is vindictive and is not averse, after taking
advantage of his opponent, to kicking him once he is down. Trump could be correct in this
regard, and maybe French and British forces will be forced to withdraw their small group of 400
to 500 illegal occupiers of Syrian territory. Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's
decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military
presence in Syria will continue.
There is also a more refined reason to justify the US withdrawal, even if Trump is probably
unaware of it. The problem in these cases is always trying to peer through the fog of war and
propaganda in order to discern the clear, unadulterated truth.
We should begin by listing the winners and losers of the Syrian conflict. Damascus, Moscow,
Tehran and Hezbollah have won the war against aggression. Riyadh, Doha, Paris, London, Tel Aviv
and Washington, with their al Qaeda, Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist proxies, failed to
destroy Syria, and following seven years of effort, are forced to scurry away in defeat.
Those who are walking a tightrope between war and defeat are Ankara and the so-called SDF.
The withdrawal of the United States has confirmed the balance on the ledger of winners and
losers, with the clock counting down for Erdogan and the SDF to make their next determinative
move.
The enemies of Syria survive thanks to repeated bluffs. The Americans of the
military-industrial-intelligence apparatus maintain the pretence that they still have an
influence in Syria, what with troops on the ground, attacking Trump for withdrawing. In fact,
since the Russians have imposed a no-fly-zone across the country, with the S-300 systems and
other sophisticated equipment that integrate the Syrian air-defenses into the Russian air
defenses, US coalition planes are for all intents and purposes grounded, and the same goes for
the Israelis.
Of course the French and British in Syria are infected with the same delusional disease,
choosing to believe that they can count for something without the US presence. We will see in
the near future whether they also withdraw their illegal presence from Syria.
The biggest bluff of all probably comes from Erdogan, who for months threatened to invade
Syria to fight ISIS, the Kurds, or any other plausible excuse to invade a sovereign country for
the purposes of advancing his dreams of expanding Turkish territory as far as Idlib (which
Erdogan considers a province of Turkey). Such an invasion, however, is unlikely to happen, as
it would unite the SDF, Damascus and her allies to reject the Turkish advance on Syrian
territory.
The Kurds in turn seem to have only one option left, namely, a forced negotiation with
Damascus to give back to the Syrian people, in exchange for protection, the control of their
territory that is rich in oil and gas.
Erdogan wants to eliminate the SDF, and until now, the only thing that stood in his way was
the US military presence. He even threatened to attack several times, even in spite of the
presence of US troops. Ankara has long been on a collision course with NATO countries on
account of this. By removing US troops, Trump imagines, relations between Turkey and the US may
also improve. This of course is of little interest to the US deep state, since Erdogan, like
Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), is considered unsuitable, and is accordingly branded a
"dictator".
Trump probably believes that with this move, as with his defense of MBS concerning
Khashoggi, that he can try and establish a strong personal friendship with Erdogan. There are
even talks about the sale of Patriot systems to the Turks and the extradition of Gulen.
When Will They Leave, and Cui Prodest?
It remains to be confirmed when and to what extent US troops will leave Syria. If the US had
no voice in the future in Syria, with 2,000 men on the ground, now it has even less. Leaving
behind 200 to 300 special forces and CIA operatives, together with another 400 to 500 French
and British personnel, will, once they are captured with their Daesh and al Qaeda friends, be
an excellent bargaining chip for Damascus, as they were in Aleppo.
The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of
of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. The presence of US troops in
Syria allowed the foreign-policy establishment to continue to formulate plans (and spend money
to pay a lot of people in Washington) based on the delusion that they are doing something in
Syria to change the course of events. For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu
desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move.
Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of
troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his
friendship to Bibi.
Erdogan has two options before him. On the one hand, he can act against the Kurds. On the
other hand, he can sit down at the negotiating table with Damascus and the SDF, in an Astana
format, guided by Iran and Russia. Putin and Rouhani are certainly pushing for this solution.
Trump, on the other hand, would like to see Turkey enter Syria in the place of US forces, to
demonstrate he concluded a win-win deal for everyone, beating the deep-state at their own
game.
Erdogan does not really have the military force necessary to enter Syria, which is the big
secret. He would be against both the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the SDF, though the two not
necessarily in an alliance.
There is a triple bluff going on, and this is what is complicating the situation so much. On
the one hand, the SDF is bluffing in not wanting help from Damascus in case Erdogan sends in
his forces; on the other hand, Erdogan is bluffing in suggesting he is able to conquer the
territory held by the SDF; and finally, the French and British are bluffing by telling the SDF
they will be able to help them against both Erdogan and/or Assad.
Iran, Russia, Syria are the only ones who do not need to bluff, because they occupy the best
position – the commanding heights. They view Trump's decisions and his allies with
distrust. They know very well that these are mostly moves for internal consumption by the
enemies of Syria.
If the US withdraws, there is so much to be gained. The priority then becomes the west of
Syria, sealing the borders with Jordan, removing the pockets of terrorists from the east, and
securing the al-Tanf crossing. If the SDF will request protection from Damascus and will be
willing to participate in the liberation of the country and its reconstruction, Erdogan will be
done for, and this could lead to the total liberation of Idlib. It would be the best possible
outcome, an important national reconciliation between two important parts of the population. It
would give Damascus new economic impetus and prepare the Syrian people to expel the remaining
invaders (ISIS and the FSA/ Turkish Armed Forces) from the country, both in Idlib and in the
northeast in Afrin.
Russia is aware of the risk that Erdogan is running with the choices he will take in the
coming days. Perhaps the reason why Putin chose diplomacy over war with Turkey after the
downing of a Russian Su-24 in 2015 was in order to arrive at this precise moment, with as many
elements as possible present to convince Erdogan to stick with Russia and Iran instead of
embracing Trump's strategy and putting himself on an open collision course with Damascus,
Moscow and Tehran.
Putin has always been five moves ahead. He is aware that the US could not stay long in
Syria. He knows that France and the UK cannot support the SDF, and that the SDF cannot hold
territory it holds in Syria without an agreement with Damascus. He is also conscious that
Turkey does not have the strength to enter Syria and hold the territory if it did. It would
only be able justify an advance on Idlib with the support of the Russian Air Force.
Putin has certainly made it clear to Erdogan that if he made such a move to attack the SDF
and enter Syria, Russia in turn would militarily support the SAA with its air force to free
Idlib; and in case of incidents with Turkey, the Russian armed forces would respond with all
the interest earned from the unrequited downing of the Su-24 in 2015.
Erdogan has no choice. He must find an agreement with Damascus, and this is why he found
himself commenting on Trump's words the following day, criticizing US sanctions on Iran in the
presence of Iranian president Rouhani. The SDF know that they are between a rock and a hard
place, and have already sent a delegation to start negotiations with Damascus.
Trump's move was driven by US domestic politics and aimed at the 2020 elections. But in
doing so, Trump inevitably called out once and for all the bluffs built by Syria's enemies,
infuriating in the process the neoliberal imperialist establishment, revealing how each of
these factions has no more cards to play and is in actual fact destined for defeat.
Nov 9, 2010 -- 17 charged in $42 million Holocaust fraud case. FBI: Employees at Jewish
Claims Center had people pretend to be victims of Nazi persecution so they could collect
money German funds over 6000 phony claims
Germany Seeks Compensation for $57M Holocaust Fraud -- The Forward https://forward.com › News ›
World
Apr 17, 2015 -- Germany is for the first time seeking compensation for the $57 million
lost to fraud at the Claims Conference. But the Holocaust agency says it
"So we go to fallback argument B, which is "containing Iran." "Containment" was a U.S. policy
devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes
aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious
threat."
Seen as a serious threat by some?
"Taken together, these four volumes constitute an extraordinary commentary on a basic
weakness in the Soviet system. The Soviets are heavily dependent on Western technology and
innovation not only in their civilian industries, but also in their military programs. An
inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy
that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the
defense budget and the tax load on American citizens."
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of
a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly
seen as a serious threat.
"which was rightly seen as a serious threat." So it was, was it? That's really the
beginning of the bullshit in American policy. There were a few naysayers back then, since
largely vindicated by the opening of former Soviet archives, who claimed that Stalin's
postwar moves were largely defensive in nature and intended to protect the USSR from the
talked about US preemptive attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin was well aware of all the loose
talk on the American side and his country had just endured the same attempt on the part of
Nazi Germany.
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the
expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union,
which was rightly seen as a serious threat.
Could someone explain to me how exactly was the Soviet Union a serious threat to the US,
particularly in 1947? The country was devastated by the war; some regions suffered from
hunger, for goodness' sake; tens of millions were dead or maimed; the worked force was
depleted as million of young men were killed, so the economic burden fell on the shoulders of
women and teenagers; the cost of housing of people left homeless by the war was staggering;
the cost of caring for orphan children, wounded and invalids -- ditto. In contrast, the
United States was getting fatter by the minutes having benefited enormously from the war in
Europe.
The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack the
US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated as
early as in 1945. No doubts the Soviet leadership was aware of such plans. The Soviets,
having witnessed a demonstration staged for their benefits in Japans of the power of nuclear
weapons, did everything with one purpose in mind: to prevent an attack, which they were in no
position to withstand. Needless to say, the USSR didn't have nuclear weapons at that time but
even after it had acquired them, it didn't quite catch up with the US in terms on number
until the very end.
It's fair to say that the Soviet Union was never ever a thereat to the US. On the
contrary, the US was a threat to the Soviet Union from the fist till the last day of its
existence, as it remains a treat to Russia today. The problems with the Americans, even the
most reasonable of them (not at all difficult to appear on today's insane background), is
that they don't question the entire narrative they are fed but only the bits of it.
@Tony
H. George Kennan's attitude towards Russia had evolved throughout the 70s-90s, but this
evolution has been carefully obscured by the ziocon warriors and other war-profiteers using
the ZUSA resources for their personal enrichment:
With the end of the Cold War, Kennan continued to emphasize the limits of American power
and the need for restraint in the exercise of it.
He lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war and
characteristically aimed to influence the role that the United States should play in the
new world circumstances.
He objected to plans for North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion and to what he saw
as exploitation of Russian weakness.
"... Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else. ..."
Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot
is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed
how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive
dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else.
As to the wall, it is one of the silliest projects ever suggested. Maybe that's why it was so easy to sell it to the intellectually
disadvantaged electorate. There are two things that can stop illegal immigration.
First, go for the employers, enact a law that fines them to the tune of $50,000 or more per every illegal they employ. Second,
enact the law that anyone caught residing in the US illegally has no right to enter the US legally, to obtain asylum, permanent
residency, or citizenship for life, and include a provision that marriage to a US citizen does not nullify this ban.
Then enforce both laws. After that illegals would run out of the country, and greedy employers won't hire any more. Naturally,
the wall, even if built, won't change anything: as long as there are employers trying to save on salaries, immigration fees, and
Social Security tax, and people willing to live and work illegally risking nothing, no wall would stem the flow.
Unfortunately, no side is even thinking about real measures, both are just posturing.
But let me tell you the future: there will be no withdraw from Syria UNLESS the king of
Israel agrees.
No doubt about it. I'm sure the Trumpster is telling us peasants what we want to hear,
just as he did while campaigning, and who knows if the US military will really get out of
Syria on his order. I myself think he's bullshitting, but I hope I'm wrong.
@ChuckOrloski
Pretty much. Sounds like "the only democracy in the Middle East".
But if we cry for every victim of Israeli scheming, we can't drink enough to replenish the
store of tears. Maybe we should do something about it, rather than crying or laughing? Or
commenting here lulled by false anonymity? NSA is listening, anyway.
"... If in addition to withdrawing from Syria orange clown were to stop arming the "government" of "Ukraine" and agree to negotiations with Russia on the issue of intermediate range nuclear armed missiles in Europe -- with a goal to support/strengthen the INF treaty rather than withdraw from it -- I might be willing to entertain the idea that something's changed. ..."
"... Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this, at face value. ..."
"... just watch their behaviour -- the wall never gets built even though they are now talking about increasing the "defense" budget from $700 billion to $750 billion next year -- the increase alone is the cost of two walls ..."
"President Donald Trump's order to withdraw from Syria has been greeted, predictably, with an
avalanche of condemnation culminating in last Thursday's resignation by Defense Secretary
James Mattis. The Mattis resignation letter focused on the betrayal of allies "
Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this, at
face value.
Orange clown's alleged disengagement from Syria may be (and probably is) nothing more that
a tactical retreat/change in plans for which the Mattis resignation is merely a fig leaf;
that is, it's just more of the same disingenuous dialectics that we've been bombarded with
since the beginning of the "Trump" administration.
Apparently we're urged to conclude that Trump has finally had enough of the people he
knowingly and willingly surrounded himself with, and their agenda, and now all of a sudden
(because of some kind of a spiritual epiphany, pro-American New Year's resolution, etc.) he
wants to do right by (some of) his supporters by doing what he should've done a long time
ago. (And the hint of a military drawdown in Afghanistan adds a nice touch).
Sorry but I can't buy what they're selling.
If in addition to withdrawing from Syria orange clown were to stop arming the
"government" of "Ukraine" and agree to negotiations with Russia on the issue of intermediate
range nuclear armed missiles in Europe -- with a goal to support/strengthen the INF treaty
rather than withdraw from it -- I might be willing to entertain the idea that something's
changed.
As it is now it'll take a lot more than the obligatory "avalanche of condemnation" i.e.,
cheap words, to convince me that the perfidious orange clown and his jewish-supremacist
handlers are doing anything other than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with one
hand while steering it into the iceberg with the other hand.
Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g.
this, at face value.
agree
just watch their behaviour -- the wall never gets built even though they are now
talking about increasing the "defense" budget from $700 billion to $750 billion next year --
the increase alone is the cost of two walls
Although Russia has avoided any direct military challenge to NATO, it has nonetheless
shown a growing willingness to disrupt the status quo: through its use of force in Georgia
in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014, its often indiscriminate military intervention in Syria,
and its aggressive use of cyberwarfare to attempt to affect political outcomes in the
United States and Europe.
Haass is a Cheney's choice of opportunist and Goebbelsian kind of criminal:
Haass was born to a Jewish family in Brooklyn From 1989 to 1993, he was Special
Assistant to United States President George H. W. Bush and National Security Council Senior
Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs. In 1991, Haass received the Presidential
Citizens Medal for helping to develop and explain U.S. policy during Operation Desert
Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Haass argued that the leaders of the United States
should adopt "an imperial foreign policy" to construct and manage an informal American
empire (Haass 2000)
.local sources told Al Jazeera and Turkey's state-run Anadolu Agency --
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Tuesday that Ankara and Washington
agreed to complete withdrawal of the YPG forces from Manbij before the US pulls out of
Syria.
He added the US agreed to take back weapons given to the YPG.
Syrian government forces 'enter' Kurdish-controlled Manbij region. Trucks carrying
regime forces and equipment, and armoured vehicles have arrived in the region, sources
say.
Withdrawing from Syria is the right thing to do, though one has to be concerned that
there might be some secret side deals with Israel or Turkey that could actually result in
more attacks on Syria and on the Kurds.
Netanyahu says he will escalate attacks against Iran in Syria. Lets see if Russia
takes exception to that.
JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israel will escalate its fight against Iranian-aligned forces
in Syria after the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country, Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday.
Some Israeli officials have said U.S. President Donald Trump's move, announced on
Wednesday, could help Iran by removing a U.S. garrison that stems the movement of Iranian
forces and weaponry into Syria from Iraq.
Israel also worries that its main ally's exit could reduce its diplomatic leverage with
Russia, the Syrian government's big-power backer.
"We will continue to act very aggressively against Iran's efforts to entrench in Syria,"
Netanyahu said in televised remarks, referring to an Israeli air campaign in Syria against
Iranian deployments and arms transfers to Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, carried out with
Moscow often turning a blind eye.
"We do not intend to reduce our efforts. We will intensify them, and I know that we do so
with the full support and backing of the United States."
4,000,000 Muslims have been killed as a consequence of the wars since 2001, millions more
displaced. More than 8,000 U.S. military have died in wars whose purpose was to take the
oil from the Arab s, a purpose which started in 1897 with at the Zionist Congress in
Switzerland. -- $6 trillion you say and counting, much of it borrowed. War without end means
killing without end and it has to stop.
Your article names the supporters of the war bandits and invading countries who rob the
govern of there of their money, so the money can be used to destroy the lives and to reduce
the quality of life in the target place to tribal at best (Iraq, Syria, Yemen and
Afghanistan). You mentioned war gang supporters Reuters, NYT, WoPo, mainstream television
news providers , Pentagon, the Middle East Institute, and Israel.. but you left out so many
others.
The important people to be considered in this are the Syrians humans governed by the Assad
Syrian Government. & years of catching USA, British, French, Turkish, and Israeli bombs
and donating, to Saudia Arabia raised Wahhabi's, Syrian heads and Syrian body parts, and
being forced into homeless status as refugees of one more invader war, the Syrian people have
evolved into strong nation organized to defend against the most powerful militarises in the
world, they have voted 87% to keep Dr. Assad in three different elections as their leader.
But something else happened: Syria became stronger, Syria became an international player,
because both Russia and Iran joined to help Syria defend its sovereignty and to defend the
lives of the Syrian people. I cannot think of one single American who wants anything the
Syrian people have?
Why the war? So a few oil companies can steal the oil in Syria and run oil pipelines
through Syria in order to defeat Russia's oil sales to Europe. Its not about Israel security
(no threatens to invade Israel), its about Zionist greed and the urge to be entertained by
murdering people in their homes.
So, Trump bends over his second least favorite babysitter/general, Mattis, and orders a
complete withdrawal from Syria opening the door to NATO's Turkey to go after the Kurd units
there, which is an interesting development.
Putin wanted the USA out but he also has warned Erdogan against funneling Idlib's Salafi
militants to Syria's Kurdish region, something Erdogan has been keen to do. Actually I expect
the erratic Erdogan will go for it anyway, and small wonder at that, considering Erdogan's
intelligence chief, Hakan Fidan, whose personal history is one of a bona fide member of al
Qaida. Is Putin ready for Erdogan to back-stab Russia again? (recalling Erdogan's military
had shot down a Russian jet.) This has to be the biggest geopolitical soap opera of the
moment:
"The third disagreement is related to the fate of extremists as Turkish officials want
to transfer them to Kurdish-controlled areas while Russian officials insist on "terminating
them""
So, then Trump's detractors (includes Mattis) will point the finger at Trump (not Turkey)
when Syria's east is reinfected with Salafi militants but secretly pleased Erdogan has
reopened the terrorism pipeline into Syria if only because it will cause Assad and Russia
problems, as well, there is the perpetual profits motive (noted by Phil.) And, so it goes
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] . ..."
"... My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again ™ ..."
"... Today's Jerusalem Post had a link to this Kamala Harris political fund-raising ad. ..."
"... Boot, Nuland, Shapiro, Stephens, Reiner, etc etc – one (((chickenhawk))) after another ..."
"... This is the first sane thing Trump did in two years. Also, this is the first action he promised his supporters in 2016. Naturally, Israel-firsters, who in 2016 backed the corrupt mad witch to a man, are unhappy. ..."
"... Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives. And if anything goes wrong, the Brits can distance themselves and blame it on "the Yanks." A win-win ..."
"... NYT, CNN, WaPo, and others of their ilk are desperately trying to appear peace-loving while promoting wars that benefit MIC and Israel. Hypocrisy at its most awkward. The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors. ..."
President Donald Trump's order to withdraw from Syria has been greeted, predictably, with an
avalanche of condemnation culminating in last Thursday's resignation by Defense Secretary James
Mattis. The Mattis resignation
letter focused on the betrayal of allies, though it was inevitably light on details,
suggesting that the Marine Corps General was having some difficulty in discerning that American
interests might be somewhat different than those of feckless and faux allies like Israel and
Saudi Arabia that are adept at manipulating the levers of power in Washington and in the media.
Mattis clearly appreciates that having allies is a force multiplier in wartime but fails to
understand that it is a liability otherwise as the allies create an obligation to go to war on
their behalf rather than in response to any actual national interest.
The media was quick to line up behind Mattis. On Friday, The New York Times
featured
a lead editorial entitled "Jim Mattis was right" while neocon twitter accounts blazed with
indignation. Prominent chickenhawk mouthpieces David Frum and Bill Kristol, among many others,
tweeted
that the end is nigh.
During the day preceding Mattis's dramatic announcement, the press went to war against the
Administration over Syria and also regarding other reports that there would be troop reductions
in Afghanistan. The following headline actually appeared
on a Reuters online article the day after the announcement by the president: "In Syria
retreat, Trump rebuffs top advisers and blindsides U.S. commanders." It would be difficult to
imagine stuffing more bullshit into one relatively short sentence. "Retreat," "rebuffs" and
"blindsides" are not words that are intended to convey any sort of even-handed assessment of
what is occurring in U.S. policy towards the Middle East. They are instead meant to imply that
"Hey, that moron in the White House has screwed up again!"
Consider for a moment the agenda that Reuters is apparently pushing. It is supporting an
illegal
and unconstitutional invasion of Syria by the United States that has a stated primary
objective of removing a terrorist organization which is already mostly gone and a less
frequently acknowledged goal of regime change for the legitimate government in Damascus and the
expulsion of that government's principal allies. Reuters is asserting that staying in Syria
would be a good thing for the United States and also for its "allies" in the region even though
there is no way to "win" and no exit strategy.
Reuters is presumably basing its assessment on the collective judgments of a group of "top
advisers" who are warmongers that the rest of the world as well as many Americans consider to
be psychopaths or possibly even insane. And then there are the preferences of the "blindsided"
generals, like Mattis, who have a personal interest in career terms for maintaining a constant
state of warfare. If you want to really know how what the military thinks about an ongoing war
ask a sergeant or a private, never a general. They will tell you that they are sick of endless
deployments that accomplish nothing.
The New York Timeslead story
headline on Thursday also let you know that its Editors were not please by Trump's move. It
read "U.S. ExitSeen as a Betrayal of the Kurds, and a Boon for ISIS." They also
editorialized "Trump's Decision to Withdraw From Syria Is Alarming. Just Ask His
Advisers."
The Washington Post was not far behind. It immediately ran an op-ed by the
redoubtable neocon chickenhawk Max Boot, whom Caitlin Johnstone
has dubbed The Man Who Has Been Wrong About Everything. The piece was entitled
Trump's surprise Syria pullout is a giant Christmas gift to our enemies making a twofer
with an incredible "Fuck the EU"
Victoria Nuland's piece entitled "In a single tweet Trump destroys U.S. policy in the
Middle East," which appeared simultaneously. That anyone would regard Boot and Nuland as
objective authorities on the Middle East given their ultimate and prevailing loyalty to Israel
has to be wondered at, but then again Fred Hiatt is the editorial/opinion page editor and he is
of the same persuasion, both ethnically and philosophically. They are all, of course, devoted
Zionists and the big lie about what is going on in the region is apparently always worth
repeating. As Joseph Goebbels put it in 1941 " when one lies, one should lie big,
and stick to it even at the risk of looking ridiculous."
Comments relating to the articles, op-eds and editorials in the Post and
Times bordered on the hysterical, sometimes suggesting that readers actually believe
that Trump was following orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin. And what was stirring at
Reuters, The Times , and the Post was only the tip of the iceberg. The
mainstream television news providers united in condemning the audacity of a president who might
actually try to end a war while the only favorable commentary on Trump's having taken a step
that is long overdue came from the alternative media.
One might profitably recall how Trump has only been praised as "presidential" by the
Establishment twice – when he staged cruise missile attacks on Syria based on faulty
intelligence. The Deep State wants blood, make no mistake about it and it is not interested in
"retreat." And Trump will also get almost no support from Congress, with only longtime critics
of Syrian policy Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee as well as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
praising the move initially.
The arguments being made to criticize the Trump initiative were essentially cookie cutter
neocon soundbites. The Reuters piece in its first few lines of text asserts that the reversal
of policy "stunned lawmakers and allies with his order for U.S. troops to leave Syria, a
decision that upends American policy in the Middle East. The result, said current and former
officials and people briefed on the decision, will empower Russia and Iran and leave unfinished
the goal of erasing the risk that Islamic State, or ISIS, which has lost all but a sliver
territory, could rebuild." The article goes on to quote an anonymous Pentagon source who opined
that " Trump's decision was widely seen in the Pentagon as benefiting Russia as well as Iran,
both of which have used their support for the Syrian government to bolster their regional
influence. Iran also has improved its ability to ship arms to Lebanese Hezbollah for use
against Israel. Asked who gained from the withdrawal, the defense official, who spoke on
condition of anonymity, replied: 'Geopolitically Russia, regionally Iran.'"
Another so-called expert Charles Lister of the Middle East Institute was also cited in the
article, saying "It completely takes apart America's broader strategy in Syria, but perhaps
more importantly, the centerpiece of the Trump administration policy, which is containing
Iran."
Israel is also
turning up the heat on Trump, claiming that the move will make it more insecure. Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to increase air attacks on Iranian targets in Syria as an
added security measure to make up for the American betrayal. Normally liberal American Jews
have joined the hue and cry against Trump on behalf of Israel. Filmmaker Rob Reiner
tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally unstable malignant
narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States.
The real story, lost in the wailing and gnashing to teeth, is that even after conceding that
Donald Trump's hyperbolic claim that the United States had defeated ISIS as the motive for the
withdrawal is nonsense, there is still no good reason for Washington to continue to keep troops
in Syria. The U.S. in reality did far less in the war against the terrorist groups infesting
the region than did the Russians, Iranians or the Syrians themselves and, as a result, it will
have less say in what kind of Syria emerges from the carnage. That is almost certainly a good
thing for the Syrian people.
But let's assume for sake of argument that the U.S. invasion really was about ISIS. Well,
ISIS continues to hold on to a small bit of territory near the Euphrates River and is reported
to have between one and two thousand remaining fighters. There are other estimates suggesting
that between 10,000 and 20,000 followers have dispersed and gone underground awaiting a
possible resurgence by the group. The argument that ISIS will reorganize and re-emerge as a
result of the American withdrawal assumes that it is the 2,000 strong U.S. armed forces that
are keeping it down, which is ridiculous. The best remedy against an ISIS recovery is to
support a restored and re-unified Syria, which will have more than enough resources available
to eliminate the last bits of the terrorist groups remaining in its territory.
So we go to fallback argument B, which is "containing Iran." "Containment" was a U.S. policy
devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes
aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious threat.
Iran is a second world country with a small military and economy with no nuclear arsenal and it
neither threatens the United States nor any of its neighbors. But Israel supported by Saudi
Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria
recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality. Positioning American military forces to "counter"
Iran does not reduce the threat against the United States because there was no threat there to
begin with.
And then there is the argument that the U.S. departure empowers Iran and Russia. Staying in
Syria is, on the contrary, a drain on both those countries' limited resources. The more money
and manpower they have to commit to Syria the less they have to become engaged elsewhere and it
is hard to imagine how either country would exploit the "victory" in Syria to leverage their
involvement in other parts of the world. Both would be delighted if a final settlement of the
Syrian problem could be arrived at so they can get out.
And as for the United States, the military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the
U.S. itself or vital interests. There is nothing like that at stake in Syria. So, is American
national security better or worse if the U.S. leaves? As Russian and American soldiers only
confront each other directly in Syria, U.S. national security would in fact be greatly improved
because the danger of igniting an accidental war with Russia would be dramatically reduced.
There have reportedly already been a dozen incidents between U.S. and Russian troops, including
some involving shooting. That has been a dozen too many. Even the possibility of starting an
unintended war with Iran would potentially be disastrous for the United States as well as for
everyone else in the region, so it is far better to put some distance between the two
sides.
And finally, it is necessary to go to the argument for disengagement from Syria that is too
little heard in the western media or from the usual bonehead politicians named Graham and Rubio
who pronounce on foreign policy. How has American intervention in the Middle East and south and
central Asia benefited the people in the countries that have been invaded or bombed? Not at
all. By some estimates four million Muslims have been killed as a consequence of the wars since
2001 and millions more displaced. More than eight thousand U.S. military have died in the
process in wars that had no purpose and no exit strategy. And the wars have been expensive
–
$6 trillion and counting, much of it borrowed. War without end means killing without end
and it has to stop Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz
Review
Withdrawing from Syria is the right thing to do, though one has to be concerned that there
might be some secret side deals with Israel or Turkey that could actually result in more
attacks on Syria and on the Kurds. Donald Trump is already under extreme pressure coming from
all directions to reverse his decision to leave Syria and it is quite possible that he will
either fold completely or bend at least a bit. It is to be hoped that he will not do so as a
Christmas present to the American people. And he might want to think of a Christmas present for
2019. One might suggest a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review
The very fact that Hollywood twits who couldn't find Syria on the outline map of the world to
save their lives have been roped in to get all outraged about Trump withdrawing troops from
Syria proves that the military industrial complex is worried that it will lose sales if the
Amerikastani Empire steps back from actively looking for war.
The military industrial complex, after all, runs Hollywood ...
Again I have the idea that my, not just mine, theory about Trump is confirmed, he understands
that the USA will destroy itself economically and politically by continuing to try to control
the world.
Of course, USA Deep State is furious, through its mouth pieces CNN, Washpost and NYT.
Of course Netanyahu is more than furious, Sharon's 'we control America' seems to be over.
If Putin and Trump agree explicitly or implicitly, I do not know, and, if they indeed agree,
it does not matter.
The essential thing for me is that both in Washington and in Moscow we now have reasonable
men, who understand that warfare is just destruction of wealth.
Interesting is what the consequences for EU and NATO will be.
They must be in utter confusion.
What a great present, unexpectedly getting a Phil Giraldi column on Christmas day! Merry
Christmas, Phil and everyone !
I'm little more pessimistic about Trump's withdrawal from Syria; it seems to me all the
more proof that he's getting ready to attack Iran !
If you wanted to do that, you'd first clear it with the Israelis and they'd be quiet
(check) – actually, this would be their plan; then you would get US troops out of Syria
to protect them from Iranian troops in Syria (invited by Assad), (check). then you would move
one or two aircraft carriers into the Persian gulf (check)!
Then you would hit Iran on New Year's Day (open), and then you would take Trump down for
starting an illegal war (open).
All birds down with Stalin-esque (criminal) elegance!
My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims
and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally
occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again ™
The fact is the mossad could easily pull this off, having so many Israelis from
Northern-African and Middle Eastern extraction, fluent in Arab and looking exactly like well,
Arabs. They could infiltrate and recruit Arab salafist patsies and easily organize terrorist
attacks without executing the hits themselves. And it is actually a genius move:
1) Create a terrorist thread in Europe, making Westerners wary of Arabs, ie more likely to
understand Israel policies towards Palestinians and side with Israel (message being:
apartheid State? what else can we Israelis do? Palestinians are all gropers, misogynists,
homophobes and potential terrorists FYI)
2) Hit the countries with the most Jews (France, Germany and UK) so they are more likely
to start packing up to make Aliyah, so Israel's demographic problem is at least temporarily
solved, retaining a majority population of Jews.
3) Make the US, through the Jewish lobby in the US, attack strategic countries such as
Libya, Iraq and Syria, creating a migrant tsunami to flood Europe, making Europeans even more
wary of Arabs and understanding of Israeli's treatment of Palestinians (Arabs) and also
making European Jews even more likely to make Aliyah. I even have heard of Israeli NGOs
funded by the Israeli Ministry of FA operating in Lesbos and helping "refugees" to flood
Europe. After a public outcry the Ministry logo vanished from the NGOs sponsors page.
Even the Cologne issue with the gropings, and I am getting too conspiratorial here, could
have been a group of Israeli provocateurs kickstarting the whole assaults wave. Let's say, a
group of mossad operatives, composed of Israelis from Northern-African and/or Middle Eastern
extraction, with false documentation and fluent in Arab, start groping and assaulting German
women, taking advantage of the total chaos offered and facilitated by moronic Merkel. They
get caught? no problem, false passports or even no passports at all, just give false names
and disappear. Not that Arabs need that much help to make themselves look bad, after all some
American reporter was assaulted *live* and for what I have read the lecherous groping of
women walking alone is a well documented problem in all the ME. But maybe thanks to a little
push by provocateurs, an incident big enough was engineered and the image of Arabs in the
West reached historic lows thanks to the Cologne affair.
And creating phoney terrorist groups to use them for false flags is not something new at
all for the mossad, let's all remember what the FLLF was and how almost executed an US
Ambassador.
"Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally
unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States."
He and fellow tribesmen are welcome to sign up and go fight Israel's wars themselves, just
not with white male republican blood. The guy is good at border skirmishes, too. He led an
effort to keep poor Mexicans out of his rich Malibu neighborhood back in 2014 by refusing
Whole Foods a building location. Like most of his kind, he's a sociopathic hypocrite and a
liar.
@MAGAnotMISA
What I miss is destroying white cultures through mass immigration.
Though what I miss in this theory what exactly is the objective, is it whites and Muslims
annihilating each other, or just divide and rule ?
But maybe thinking in this way has not gone far enough.
Bernard Baruch's world domination plan failed miserably, but he even failed to understand
that it had failed, otherwise he had not in 1946 pleaded for a world government.
One must not underestimate the enemy, but also not overestimate him.
Jewish policies for the last 2000 years can hardly be seen as a success.
Judaism lost the battle with Christianity, Bolshevism failed in Russia, getting equal rights
in W Europe led to the WWII deportations, with or without gas chambers, Israel succeeded in
surrounding itself with enemies, as neighbors, and all over the world, and Jewish puppet
Hillary was not elected.
The latest statements by Netanyahu confirm my idea of a complete idiot.
I continue to be amazed that anyone gives any credibility whatsoever who claims US Mideast
military involvement is in the best interest of the nation. The above-mentioned commenters
must almost inevitably more about self-interest than anything patriotic. As for appearing
profound, well, there's Rob Reiner!
As I sat in Christmas Eve service last night, an adorable little boy played quietly with his
father in the seat next to us. The little boy was probably just under 2 years of age.
In the middle of one of the Christmas Carols the thought struck me,
"I wonder if we will still be in ___________ war 17 years from now, when this
little boy becomes enlistment age . . ."
That thought alone makes me favor Trump for re-election. I think (I could be wrong, I'm no
expert) we have less war and a lesser risk of war with Trump. The "establishment" policies
of: invade the world – invite the world – in hoc with the world; are horrifically
deadly and destructive.
As usual, Giraldi is spot on with his observations. I wish him a Merry Christmas and hope to
see a lot more of his articles in the coming year.
I find Rob Reiner amusing, if not occasionally annoying. After having spent decades up to
my nose with his tribe while working in LA in the entertainment industry I can guarantee
Hollywood Jews go completely apoplectic anytime they perceive their government, the
Jewish-occupied government that rules over us all, is not following their commands.
Come to think of it, apoplexy's first definition is a stroke, its second definition is: a
state of intense and almost uncontrollable anger. One can only hope that jerks like Reiner
who indulge so heavily in the second definition will end up experiencing the first, and good
riddance.
A mong hawks in N. America, Cooper's Hawk ( Accipiter cooperii ),
Red-shouldered Hawk ( Buteo lineatus ), and Red-tailed Hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis
) are the three species most likely to take domestic chickens, or yardbirds as they are
sometimes called, and it is these three species that are or have been commonly called
Chickenhawks in the United States, at least among non-birders, who are people with neither
binoculars nor field guide.
But I think most here know that Philip Giraldi is referring to the craven human variety of
warmonger known in some circles as the Yellow-tailed Chickenhawk, or its close relative the
Yellow-bellied Chickenhawk.
President Trump's announcement is a very nice Christmas present, which I choose to take a
face value pending unwrapping. As always, actions speak louder than words. Let's hope that
there isn't a booby prize or two lurking beneath the Christmas tree and hidden by the big
surprise package, or that there isn't a lump of coal at the bottom of our holiday
stockings.
Pipelines to Europe for KSA and fresh water sources for Israel? Destabilizing a local
rival of both? Who knows?
What we do know is that "we" have allowed our "leaders" to pimp out our military to the
rogue special interests of the world. We have the best government foreign interests can
buy.
The Zionist MSM and MIC and the Zionist AIPAC and company are the hounds of Hell baying for
war as warmongers always want war as long as they do not have to fight it and can reap the
profits from the wars! ...
@chris
Let's think about this. The USA has not been able to defeat the Afghan Taliban forces in 17
years. It brought down Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, but, with that unfortunate country
totally destroyed, how could you call that a win (I doubt if the Iraqi's consider the US to
be liberators).
Now the crack pot Obama/Hillary campaign has lost in Syria, and Trump wants to pull out. All three countries were much
smaller and weaker than Iran...
But Israel supported by Saudi Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to
follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality.
Positioning American military forces to "counter" Iran does not reduce the threat against
the United States because there was no threat there to begin with.
Yes of course, I would just add that Israel hates Iran.
Rand Paul and others have been pushing back hard against the NEOCON narrative here, good
news. The initial anti Trump tide has turned in this matter.
I briefly saw Bill Krysrol's smug mug on TV the other day....
Trump telling General Mattis to pack his bags and begone is the work of a good CEO. Mad Dog
could have done a lot of damage to Mr. Trump's agenda if he had been allowed to stay on until
the end of February, as he had said he would. In corporate America, if an underling is
disloyal to the CEO, he will be told to vacate the premises for good by the end of the
workday, and escorted out of the building by armed security. His keys will be taken, all
locks will be changed, and his passwords expunged. No doubt Trump, as CEO, has had to employ
such tactics many times before. He obviously relishes saying "You're Fired!"
Any competent Trump loyalist can be found to replace this worn out old soldier. I hope he
won't be yet another general. MacArthur said that "old soldier never die, they just fade
away." Time for Mattis to do just that, and never be heard from again.
Syria is a money pit for the taxpayers and giant profit source for the super rich. 'The
United States military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the U.S. itself or vital
interests' says Trump, Obama or Bush. But war is too important to be left to politicians.
They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought.
Trump
was appointed by rich people only so they could have someone to blame. 100% of the voters
believe they personally have the right to kill women and children overseas with their hired
mercenaries to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests. Americans shell out taxes to pay
for US troops to guard mining operations and poppy fields in Afghanistan, oil fields in Iraq,
online propaganda and so much more. Why deploy the United States Military when there's more
profit in hiring private mercenaries? Plus you don't have to say that "vital interests" crap
anymore.
This article is an excellent summary of msm and neocon reaction to the planned US withdrawal
from Syria and a good survey of why getting Uncle Sam out of Syria makes sense. I would also
add that allying with the Kurds was at best a short term solution. Not only would a Kurdish
state in eastern Syria be unacceptable to Turkey but the Sunni Arabs of the Euphrates Valley
would be certain to resist Kurdish rule. Merry Christmas to all!
@ChuckOrloski
In my opinion, Zionist Israel will never stop being the agent provocateur in the Mideast and
elsewhere ie the Ukraine etc., and since the Zionists control the U.S. government I think
their satanic NWO plans are still in place, and think the U.S. military is just going to be
placed in Iraq and Jordan ie just across the border to Syria and will continue with their
proxy mercenaries aka AL CIADA aka ISIS.
Some good sites to follow are Southfront.org and Henrymakow.com and Stevequayle.com and
Thetruthseeker.co.uk etc., all things considered even Putin said that Russia will wait and
see if the U.S. really leaves the Mideast, I wish all our troops would be brought home, but
with the Zionist control of our government it will never happen.
It is snowing here in Montana so we have a white Christmas, which we could do without, but
have a Merry Christmas!
If you want to know who's agitating for war, look no further than our "friends," the Brits.
This is what they do every single time a U.S. President doesn't commit troops to some war
they've approved of, or started. They terror bait, or mock, or a combination of the two. And
since a lot of people in Washington take them seriously, it has appreciable impact on our
policies.
This is the first sane thing Trump did in two years. Also, this is the first action he
promised his supporters in 2016. Naturally, Israel-firsters, who in 2016 backed the corrupt
mad witch to a man, are unhappy. Their unhappiness is a good sign that this action is
actually in American interests. If Trump folds and reverses, this would expose him as a 100%
fraud. If he sticks to his guns, maybe there is hope for him yet. Stay tuned.
@follyofwar
Oh, no; I don't mean Trump will start some major ground offensive to win anything! No,
they'll just try to destroy Iran in order to give jihadist a chance to kill as many people as
possible. This will be a Libyan-style war and "victory."
The U.S. has 2,000 soldiers in a kill-sack if Erdogan decides to cut off their supply lines.
And, calling Erdogan "unreliable" is something of an understatement. The U.S. can say very
little about Erdogan's behaviour while he can take reprisals on U.S. troops.
-- Turkey and Saudi are feuding, and the U.S. needs Saudi more than Turkey to maintain
sanctions and other pressure on Iran.
-- Turkey is becoming dangerously deranged in its statements about Israel (1). And the
U.S. / Israeli relationship is vital for many reasons.
-- Turkey has been a threat to Christian Cyprus for decades. The Leviathan-Cyprus-Greece
pipeline is important to help free Christian Populist EU nations, such as Italy, from
tyrannical rule under Soros-servitors Merkel and Macron.
Do not over over read the withdrawal as a change in regional strategy. There are no major
policy changes. This is about opening the door to push out Erdogan, if that becomes necessary
to support the existing U.S. regional strategy. And, the U.S. can still hope that Erdogan is
saying demented things solely for domestic consumption and doesn't intend to actually follow
thru on the crazy.
@MAGAnotMISA
"ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US
attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab
lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again "
– Hard to disagree with your statement. And who could forget the amazing care of the
Jewish State for the White Helmets known for their cooperation with other "moderate"
terrorists: https://gellerreport.com/2018/07/israel-syria-jordan.html/
Israel Evacuates 800 of Syria's White Helmets and Their Families to Jordan
The Israel Defense Forces said it engaged in the "out of the ordinary" gesture due to
the "immediate risk" to the lives of the civilians, as Russian-backed regime forces closed
in on the area. It stressed that it was not intervening in the ongoing fighting in
Syria.
The Jordanian government, which has consistently refused to accept Syrian refugees in
recent years, said an exception was made in this case as the United Kingdom, Canada and
Germany agreed to take the 800 White Helmet rescuers and their families.
Germany's Bild newspaper reported that a convoy of dozens of buses crossed the Syrian
border into Israel late Saturday, and were escorted to the Jordanian border by Israeli
police and UN forces.
A lot of the rejoicing in the pro-Putin camp seems to be based on the idea that this somehow
benefits Putin but I don't think it does. He is still irreversibly bogged down in Syria.
@renfro
Netanyahu is telling the idiotic Israeli public what they want to hear. Let's not forget that
there are elections due on 9 April.
You can hardly expect a politician to tell the public that if they so much as launch a
missile against Damascus airport, the airport of Tel Aviv will be bombed in return. The days
when the Israelis could do as they wished in Syria and Lebanon are gone.
"Organ theft, staged attacks: UN panel details White Helmets' criminal activities, media
yawns," by Eva Bartlett.
"[During] a more than one-hour-long panel on the White Helmets at the United Nations on
December 20 the irrefutable documentation was presented on the faux-rescue group's
involvement in criminal activities, which include organ theft, working with terrorists --
including as snipers -- staging fake rescues, thieving from civilians, and other
non-rescuer behaviour.
a Syrian civilian, Omar al-Mustafa, is cited as stating: "I saw them (White Helmets)
bring children who were alive, put them on the floor as if they had died in a chemical
attack."
In my own visits to eastern Ghouta towns last April and May, residents likewise spoke of
organ theft, staged rescues, the White Helmets working with Jaysh al-Islam, while an Aleppo
man likewise described them as thieves who steal from civilians, not rescuers.
Four days after the UN panel, to my knowledge, not a single corporate media outlet has
covered the event and its critical contents.
This is in spite of the fact that the Western corporate media has been happy to
propagandize about the White Helmets for years, and to attack those of us who dare to
present testimonies and evidence from on the ground in Syria which contradicts the official
narrative.
@DESERT
FOX "The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep
state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where
the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it , when
every thinking American knows that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911!"
The number of victims of 9/11 in NYC are way above 3000. Cancers and so on just don't get
counted. BTW, it is not from the dust. It is from the small nuclear bombs in the 2 buildings.
The 3rd building was only explosives.
@jilles
dykstra "Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?"
– He is certainly endangering himself and his parasitic state by the silly ideas of
mythological choseness.
Let's hope that the more intelligent Soviet Jews (as compared to the mediocre pool of the
pre-Soviet Israelis) take pains to explain the former salesman the stupidity of military
confrontation with Iran/Russia. As for the US-dwelling zionists' stupidity it is irredeemable.
@Bragadocious
What the hell is up with these dysfunctional Brits anyway? With their empire thankfully long
gone, their society in tatters, and a Muslim mayor running majority-minority London, they
think they can get the US to take on Iran for them? Spare me! This "special relationship" has
got to end. The Brits must be under the thumb of the Zionists even more than is the USA. And
their sad monarchy belongs in the dustbin of history.
@jilles
dykstra It's just what you said, he's keeping a low profile and staying inside on advice
of his security. They're probably worried about snipers in ahigh rise somewhere.
It's been fun listening to (((NPR))) try to spin military withdrawal as a bad thing without
actually saying as much. "Trump's facing critics in his own party," "here are some Kurds
bitching," "General McProcurer is really pissed," "Chikkenhauk Epsteinbergwitzbaum sez it's
the end of the world," etc.
No rationality, no credibility decision (Syria withdrawal).
Most variables are missing. Trump is insignificant but as a figurehead. At least a few
layers, the correlations and "secret" deals with Israel, Turkey, IS, Kurds, France, the UK,
let's not forget Russia are missing. The commoner, deplorable, are lead by the nose, our
middle class bread scribes are doing the herding by shifting the attention, and building an
exit of face saving on what they omit to pull in the open.
No value in this "News" and "Christmas present" at all, but more of deceit of a global
ruling class in the shadows. It is called smarts, to deceive the rest of the dumb (in the
eyes of the elites) masses, it is relevant to call out our elites on not smart enough to
think over the long term.
Who of a building presence of outliers can they still deceive?
@Sarah
Toga "Death and taxes" for countries translates to "war and bankruptcy." Maybe we'll get
lucky and hit the latter before we kill everyone in the former.
@Realist
That's more like Erdogan's problem with Russia. Russian coastal defense system K-300P
Bastion-P in Crimea is perfectly capable of making Bosporus and Dardanelles straits much
wider. However crazy Erdogan is, he is well aware of that.
@follyofwar
Actually Brits think their country is doing just great. But yeah, the "special relationship"
should be scuttled. We face a bigger threat from British jihadis than any Iranians anywhere.
Richard Reid is sitting in a federal Supermax, but I don't think any Iranians are.
Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives. And if anything
goes wrong, the Brits can distance themselves and blame it on "the Yanks." A win-win.
@Svigor
It is really funny to see "peace-loving" liberals trying not to look like warmongers that
they are. NPR is not alone in attempting this sleight of hand: NYT, CNN, WaPo, and others of
their ilk are desperately trying to appear peace-loving while promoting wars that benefit MIC
and Israel. Hypocrisy at its most awkward. The only good thing is, they are forced to show
their true colors.
@m___
Well you know, that perception of yours re how the real world really works is, actually,
positive and optimistic.
If if I get you correct, you believe/feel/think there IS the "overclass" (for a lack of
better word) which rules the world. They are hidden, all powerful, competent, on the same
page and malevolent re us , the common folks.
I am afraid that's not the case.
I believe/feel/think there is no such overclass.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of power
who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth. The
malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.
And, gets worse, actually.
In this particular case I think the decision was made in a spur of a moment. Pure Emperor
whim,if you will.
On top of it, we still haven't seen any actual move on the ground.
And, even if those up to 2000 men do pull out, what about CIA/special forces/contractors
bunch?
And, even better, those 2000 and more can return in 48 hours if the Emperor decides
otherwise. In a spur of a moment too.
Anyone so happy here commenting this .thing has been following what's really been
happening with North Korea?
What exactly changed from that fateful meeting between the Emperor and the Cult Leader?
Let's summarize: the very point of all that was stopping and rolling back NK capability for
long range nuclear strike.
So .any "rolling" happened? Anything?
I don't think so, but, more than happy to be proven wrong. Proven, mind you.
The only important, and sad actually, is how we all got into the stage when a tweet by
that fellow can agitate us so much.
Mice and just a whiff of cheese over the cage.
They really got us where they wanted. And those "they" aren't even that smart.
Just great.
All wars are jews wars: "Trump is retreating from Syria – and from his pro-Israel Jewish conservative
voters. If that decision is a harbinger of other strategic moves distancing him from Israel's
security, much of his remaining Jewish support will fall off a cliff"
"The United States refuse to fight for the transnational financiers"
As soon as he entered the White House, Donald Trump was careful to surround himself with
three senior military officers with enough authority to reposition the armed forces.
Michael Flynn, John Kelly and especially James Mattis, have since left or are in the
process of leaving. All three men are great soldiers who together had opposed their
hierarchy during Obama's presidency. They did not accept the strategy implemented by
ambassador John Negroponte for the creation of terrorist groups tasked with stirring up a
civil war in Iraq. All three stood with President Trump to annul Washington's support for
the jihadists.
The Pentagon project for the last seventeen years in the "Greater Middle East" will not
happen. Conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, it was aimed at destroying all the state
structures in the region, with the exception of Israël, Jordan and Lebanon. This plan,
which began in Afghanistan, spread as far as Libya, and is still under way, will come to an
end on Syrian territory.
It is no longer acceptable that US armies fight with taxpayers' funds for the sole
financial interests of global financiers, even if they are US citizens.
The Bush Jr. and Obama administrations shoulder the entire responsibility for this war
[in Syria]. They were the ones who planned it and realised it within the framework of a
unipolar world .
Afghanistan's misery began during the Carter presidency. National Security Advisor,
Zbigniew Brzeziński, called on the Muslim Brotherhood and Israël to launch a
campaign of terrorism against the Communist government. Terrified, the government appealed
to the Soviets to maintain order. The result was a fourteen-year war, followed by a civil
war, and then followed by the Anglo-US invasion.
After forty years of uninterrupted destruction, President Trump states that US military
presence is not the solution for Afghanistan, it's the problem.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of
power who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth.
The malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.
@Realist
When Erdogan's military had shot down the Russian jet, Turkey paid for it rapidly with an
economic squeeze. Russian tourism to Turkey was shut down and green grocer exports to Russia
were subjected to intense scrutiny/inspection and nearly halted. One could say the Turks are
still feeling the effect, the impact was immediate and probably there hasn't been a full
recovery to some of the businesses that had been damaged. Erdogan tucked his tail and played
nice with Putin after all but he is no dependable ally of anyone, he's screwed everyone he'd
ever done business with insofar as the M.E. regional game. The main problem with Turkey for
Russia is the Erdogan regime's Salafi outlook (to say the leadership is sympathetic to
al-Qaida would be an understatement.) Erdogan may have promised to 'neutralize' the Idlib
extremists but he won't, he can't, in fact he doesn't dare, it is estimated there are upwards
of 1,000 cells established in Turkey. How that plays out is anyone's guess but my money is on
the idea he'll shove the the Idlib extremists off on the Kurds as a Turkish military proxy
and cross Putin in the process (the USA won't mind this at all and in fact CIA Ops division
might reward it.)
@AnonFromTN"The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors."
Exactly. The liars, frauds, gatekeepers, Hillary-bots, and every brand of stupid in between
have been flushed into the open. For example, anyone who still admires Chomsky should take
note:
Aaron MatéVerified account @aaronjmate · Dec 24
Update: Chomsky was sent my Q & this is his response. He favors keeping US troops in
Syria as a holding operation until a final settlement w/ Russia-Assad that could guarantee
Kurds' safety. With US pulling out now, he argues that all leverage is lost to avoid a
Turkish assault:
"What deal with the Russians (who right now are making cozy deals with Turkey)? And a
deal with Assad, the main mass murderer in Syria – – who can in any event do
nothing to deter Turkey.
In fact, in the longer term there should be a deal crucially involving Russia and with
Assad, with some kind of guarantees (for what they are worth) to preserve at least some
limited protection for the Kurds. But that's the longer term. This is now. For now, the
sole deterrent to a Turkish assault is a small US contingent confined to Kurdish areas, as
a holding operation for a possible longer term settlement along the lines just
indicated."
Chickenhawk (bird)
- Wikipedia "In the United States, chickenhawk or chicken hawk is an unofficial designation for three species
of North Americanhawks in the family
Accipitridae :
Cooper's hawk , also
called a quail hawk, the sharp-shinned hawk , and the red-tailed hawk . The term
"chicken hawk", however, is inaccurate. Although Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks may attack
other birds, chickens do not
make up a significant part of their diets; red-tailed hawks have varied diets, but may
opportunistically hunt free-range poultry . "
Notable quotes:
"... In defense of the chickenhawk -- the actual bird ..."
"... So while I certainly despise the useless eaters that agitate for war while having not the slightest idea what combat of any kind is about, I always cringe at the degradation of the word 'chickenhawk' a mighty little predator whose good name should not be sullied in association with such human detritus ..."
The first time I saw one in action, it was quite a revelation I looked out the kitchen
window to see what looked like a blue jay perching on some kind of largish rock that he was
pecking at of course that made no sense at all and upon closer examination it turned out to
be a tiny raptor, not even a foot long from beak to tail, standing on a much larger dead
chicken and ripping flesh off of it I ran out back toward the chicken yard and the mighty
little slayer flew off the poor hen had a good part of her back flesh removed
Pretty amazing that such a tiny bird could take a chicken easily ten times its weight --
the sharp shinned hawk weighs just 200-400 grams
So while I certainly despise the useless eaters that agitate for war while having not
the slightest idea what combat of any kind is about, I always cringe at the degradation of
the word 'chickenhawk' a mighty little predator whose good name should not be sullied in
association with such human detritus
"... Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else. ..."
@Z-man
Israel fears Iran, is my idea. Norman Finkelstein once stated that Israeli jews do not see
how there ever can be peace with the Palestinians 'after all we did to them'. Not all jews
are idiots. Forgot in which book I read that in the thirties a Zionist reached Palestine, and
saw that this was not the 'land without people for people without land'. He stated 'this is a
crime'.
The destruction and destabilisation of the ME, an Israeli plan, as far as I know.
In 1921 and later years there was the enormous population exchange, without any financial
compensation, between Turkey and Greece. To this day tensions exist between the two
countries.
Iran is one of the oldest civilisations. Twice, one might say even three time, the west
overthrew Iranian democracy. Iran knows of course quite well that the VS brought Saddam to
power so that he could subjugate Iran, that had rid itself of the USA puppet shah. Iran also
of course knows quite well Jewish power in the USA, Bush' s promise to AIPAC to destroy Iraq.
Will those leading Iran now ever trust the USA or Israel ?
So that Netanyahu and USA jewry now are in complete panic, who had expected it to be
otherwise ? Uri Avnery wrote 'the only language zionists understand is power. Is there a
problem, use power, if it does not help, use more power, if that also fails, use even more
power'.
There has never been any serious negotiation between Israel and its neighbors, or with the
Palestinians. About the Oslo negotiations a book appeared in Israel with the title 'How we
fooled the Palestinians'? Sharon answered any Arab League peace proposal with force, Jenin,
one of them, if my recollection is correct. There always was the idea of overwhelming more
military power, and of USA support.
Kissinger saved Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war by flying over hundreds of the newest
USA anti tank weapons, wire guided, TOW. What will the USA do in case Israel is attacked ? Is
Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?
Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is
that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a
lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military
always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US
into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the
war where they lose along with everyone else.
As to the wall, it is one of the silliest projects ever suggested. Maybe that's why it was
so easy to sell it to the intellectually disadvantaged electorate. There are two things that
can stop illegal immigration. First, go for the employers, enact a law that fines them to the
tune of $50,000 or more per every illegal they employ. Second, enact the law that anyone
caught residing in the US illegally has no right to enter the US legally, to obtain asylum,
permanent residency, or citizenship for life, and include a provision that marriage to a US
citizen does not nullify this ban. Then enforce both laws. After that illegals would run out
of the country, and greedy employers won't hire any more. Naturally, the wall, even if built,
won't change anything: as long as there are employers trying to save on salaries, immigration
fees, and Social Security tax, and people willing to live and work illegally risking nothing,
no wall would stem the flow.
Unfortunately, no side is even thinking about real measures, both are just posturing.
Probably the single most important political fact about the modern world has been the steady
rise of the United States of America. From a geopolitical point of view, the United States
really is in a class of its own. While the Soviet Union might have rivaled the U.S. militarily,
and while China and the European Union may be comparable economic giants, no other nation comes
even close to having America's combination of economic, diplomatic, military, cultural, and,
increasingly important, surveillance power.
At least since the Second World War, there has been a veritable cottage industry of books
predicting America's supposedly inevitable decline, due either to the myth of American
"exceptionalism" or to imperial hubris. In actual fact, one is struck at how steadily America
has maintained its global share of power. Despite their economic recovery in the postwar years,
the decline of Western Europe and Japan has in fact proved a more fundamental tendency. Russia
has only partially recovered from the collapse from the Soviet Union. After decolonization
– the collapse of the overseas European empires – in fact virtually none of Third
World has been able to organize themselves as influential actors ("Brazil is the country of the
future and always will be," De Gaulle is supposed to have said.) Only capitalist China, it
seems, will have the organization, intelligence, and sheer size to decisively overtake the
United States economically.
... ... ...
The United States was however not merely founded by Europeans, but in particular by the
English, who have the distinction of having been one the most dynamic and economically
successful of European nations. England, blessed with mostly harmlessly small Celtic neighbors
and a crucial little expanse of water between itself and the Continent (a mere 33 kilometers
between Dover and Calais!), could develop in relative security develop in a most unique
direction. Whereas virtually all European principalities developed
Whereas political survival on the mainland depended on the state's coercive ability to raise
the men and taxes necessary to a large army, in England this depended instead on the
maintenance of a large navy, which itself required an advanced trading economy. The American
Founding Fathers were acutely aware of the role of war in the development of Continental
despotism and self -consciously made their republic into a counter-model.
For the foreseeable future however, I expect that America's combination of size,
dollar hegemony, energy, natural individualist dynamism, cultural power, and cognitive
elitism will continue to make the leading superpower outside of the Sinosphere.
and
I would not be surprised if secession were a viable prospect by mid-century
is:
I expect that America's combination of size, dollar hegemony, energy, natural
individualist dynamism, cultural power, and cognitive elitism will continue to make the
leading superpower outside of the Sinosphere at least until mid-century
Now, there are some things conspicuously missing from the article. Demographics
change, destruction of middle class and that 1 %/deplorables thing.
I guess that could've been mentioned, even addressed, but, well ..
Anyway, given those parameters, the challenge is how to live in that paradigm.
Not easy I guess for, I'd say, 95 % of authors, commentators and readers here.
A very shallow article here by someone who does not know the USA, a country hosting the
world's biggest gulag with 2.2 million prisoners in carcerated about 1 out of every 45
working-age males in prison at this moment whereas jailing in Western Europe is about 1 out
of every 1000 citizens, in the USA it is 1 out of 140
Durocher buys into USA schoolboy 'Constitution' cult propaganda, and the supposedly
glorious 'First Amendment' As shown in the recent US Dept of
Justice filing on crimes involving Robert Mueller , that 'Constitution' can be totally
and instantly nullified by judges who don't respect it, US judges even endorsing fake
documents claiming people agreed to ban their own freedom of speech for life, and ordering
that court appeals be banned from court records and the internet whilst lawyers who oppose
such schemes instantly lose their USA law licences
Durocher thinks USA 'law' is like in Hollywood movies, which points to the real
'strength' of the USA – its domination over global media and propaganda, via
Hollywood, the CIA's Wikipedia, etc
The USA has become especially corrupt internally since about the time the Soviet Union
fell, with every aspect of US culture – the courts and law, health care, etc –
becoming a criminal racket
The USA and China, both had the benefit of being huge countries in resource-rich regions
with a moderate climate There was no doubt that in earlier USA development, economic growth
was fuelled by an overall positive entrepreneur-friendly legal environment but those days
are over
US small business creation has been hit hard for some time now, too many pressures and
rules and legal problems the USA is run by out-of-control monopolists, and the place is
being poisoned, rather badly, both culturally and literally (the food)
Many USA people are okay, fun, etc but the USA is ultimately a disturbing place, and
quite dangerous if one collides with or is targeted by its police-state system, or the
gov-encouraged mafia lawyers stealing people's money, as savvy European business people
know there is no 'rule of law' there, it is wide-open court gangsterism now, as President
Trump himself suffers when the Hillary-&-Bush-tied judges (most of them) block Trump's
actions
The USA has a lot of past wealth to draw upon, and a final filip from the last years of
the US dollar as 'reserve currencey' denominating global debt but the USA is not a very
nice place, with a future either broken into pieces, or becoming a new kind of
multi-cultural, bigger sort of Mexico
This is a silly article, given its assumption that things will continue upon the
trajectory of the past quarter millennium, just as the United States teeters on the edge of
an abyss of its own making. The tragedy is less its own demise than the fact that it is
bringing the rest of the world down with it
The article is weak, and some comments demonstrate higher level of understand then the
article itself. Although the level of understanding the the destiny of the USA is not tied to the
destiny of neoliberalism (much like the USSR and Bolshevism) is still foreign for many.
I wonder how history may have played out IF the French didn't lose Canada. Suppose the
British Empire made peace with France ruling over Canada. Then, would the colonies have been
willing to rebel against the British?
Perhaps, out of fear of French Canada, the colonies would have stuck closer to the British
Empire as protection.
But the British Empire expended huge sums to defeat the French in Canada(especially
because of the insistence of the colonialists). With the French out of the picture, the
American colonies no longer feared the French and became more defiant against the Mother
Country.
Another result of the French-and-Indians War was that the British decided to tax the
colonies. Having spent so much to defend the colonies and defeat French Canada, the British
Motherland thought that increased taxation was only fair. But the colonies disagreed, and
there followed the rebellion. But here's the thing. The Revolutionaries had NO CHANCE of
winning against the British without outside help. After all, only 1/3 of colonialists
rebelled while another 1/3 fought for the Crown(and another 1/3 remained neutral). So, why
did the American Revolutionaries win? Only because the French entered on their part. And why
did the French side with the rebels? For the French, it was sweet revenge. The British
Empire, prodded by the colonialists, took on French Canada and robbed France of all that
wonderful territory.
So, what better way for the French to get their revenge by aiding the rebel-colonists
against the British Empire? As all the major battles involved French troops, it was the
French that really made American Independence possible. But this soon proved to a Pyrrhic
victory for the French Monarchy. It became financially even more exhausted than the British
Empire after the French-and-Indian Wars. Strapped for cash, the French Monarchy had a
difficult time managing social unrest, and there followed the Revolution that toppled the
king.
Even though the French Monarchy made American Independence possible, the Americans soon
sided with the French Revolutionaries. Next, if Napoleon hadn't been so ambitious on the
Continent, maybe he could have done more build up the Louisiana Territory with French
settlers. While Anglo-Americans were itching to grab that territory for themselves, they just
couldn't do it because France had done so much for the Americans. Also, having severed ties
with the British Empire(that still held Canada), they were gonna get no help from the Crown
to just grab the Louisiana territories. But then, a miracle for the Americans. Because
Napoleon was strapped for cash, he sold the entire territory for peanuts. (Later the dumb
Russians sold Alaska to Americans.)
Now, let's roll back history a little. Why didn't French Canada develop as quickly as the
13 Anglo colonies. Partly it was the weather as it was colder up there. But the other reason
was the different sets of property rights in UK and France. The French Monarchy considered
all the Canadian territory as its own private property. So, there was less incentive(and
freedom) for common Frenchmen to move to the New World and begin anew. In contrast, Anglos
who moved to America were given the opportunity for private ownership and enterprise, and
that was powerful incentive for many more Anglos to try out their luck in the New World.
Now, suppose the French had held onto French Canada and changed the incentives for
Frenchmen to move there. Keep in mind that France held both Canada and the vast Louisiana
territories. Imagine if many French moved to Canada and then moved down and settled the
Louisiana territories. They could have been the masters of America. And there might have been
no French Revolution. And there might have been no American War of Independence either.
If British Empire and French Empire had made peace in the New World, then there would have
been no French-and-Indian Wars, which led to taxation of the colonies that led to the
rebellion by colonialists. If there had been no French-and-Indian War, the colonialists might
have clung closer to the Empire out of fear of the French. Also, if there had been peace
between French Empire and British Empire, the French most certainly would NOT have aided
Independence struggle of the rebellious colonialists. Any attempt to break away from the
British Empire would have been easily crushed by British troops. In such scenario, the French
Monarchy would not have expended huge sums to aid the colonial rebellion against the British.
And flush with cash, the French Monarchy would have been far sturdier against social and
political problems.
It would have been a world without American Independence and French Revolution. It would
have been a world in which the French still controlled Canada and had claims over vast
Louisiana territories. In such a world, if the French had incentivized French migration to
the Americas like the British did, Canada and and 2/3 of the America could have ended up in
French hands, and the 20th century might have been a Franco-Canadian-Louisianan Century.
Would such have been better?
There is no mystery to American Power. It's the 3 L's: Land, Lineage, and Legacy.
Obviously, if America were 1/20th of its real size, it could not have been a superpower
despite cultural and political factors. After all, Anglos did pretty well in New Zealand, but
it's no superpower. As for Australia, it is huge, but most of the place is uninhabitable.
America was the best land in the world. All that vast territory in temperate zone. Not too
hot, not too cold, and with lots of arable land with best soil in the world. Western Europe
is also in temperate zone but small in size and lacking in resources. Russia is huge, but
much of it is cold and desolate. China is huge, but for its size, rather lacking in good
arable land and resources. In contrast, US has good weather, great farmlands, tremendous
amounts of natural resources in oil and minerals.
Then, there was the Lineage. Anglos were intelligent and homogeneous(racially). That meant
lots of ability and unity. Pretty solid DNA material.
There was also the Legacy. Anglos developed certain manners and attitudes that were
conducive for both Order and Freedom. Too much order stifles progress. Too much freedom leads
to chaos. Anglos developed a way to found freedom upon order. So, Anglo freedom wasn't about
acting like stupid drunkards but by using discipline to foster self-control that could allow
for higher freedoms in thought, enterprise, adventure, discovery, and experimentation. It was
different from the freedom of savages and barbarians whose life revolves around the passion
of the dong and butt. It was about repressing wild energies and building character so that
individuals, as men of honor and culture, could be free as ideal gentlemen and ladies. Such a
mindset and attitude made for a culture of greater trust, rule of law, and sense of honor.
People interacted on the basis of contracts than on petty kinship or autocratic
subservience.
And precisely because the Anglo Way and especially the Anglo-American Way revolved around
ideas about laws, contracts, honor, trust, and obligations, it was less culture-specific. And
this meant that new immigrants who were non-Anglo could also adopt the Anglo-American way. It
was easier for non-Anglos to assimilate into Americanism that had a set of rules than a set
of rites and rituals. It's like it's easier to convert to Christianity than to Judaism. It's
easier to become a Buddhist than a Hindu. Christianity and Buddhism are credo-faiths whereas
Judaism and Hinduism are ethno-faiths. While Americanism had a particular racial and ethnic
imprint(that of Anglos), the basic modes of Americanism could easily be adopted and practiced
by non-Anglos, at least if they were white(as a Anglo-ized German or Pole pretty much looked
like any Anglo-American).
So, Anglo-Europeans(non-Anglo whites who became Anglo-Americanized) joined with
Anglo-Americans in the American Enterprise? And why not join when there was so much promise
in living in America than in cramped old Europe(where democracy and individual rights didn't
come to fruition for most nations until the late 19th century, but even then, so much of
European history in the 20th century was about aristocratic war of WWI, communism, Fascism,
National Socialism, ethno-imperial war of WWII, and Iron Curtain. (Granted, one could say US
had its own tragedies with war with Indians, destruction of nature, and the Civil War, but
history moved too fact in the US for anyone to grieve for too long.)
That is the essential backbone of why America became a great power. The 3L and the easily
Anglo-Americanization of newcomers. It was far easier to forget your original identity and
become an Anglo/American than, say, a Swede, Pole, or Swede, all specific identities rooted
in historical particularism. Granted, French did try to universalize Frenchness, but it's
surely easier to comprehend and adopt Anglo-Americanism with its powerful but simple sets of
rules than Frenchness with so much emphasis on haute culture and intellectual sophistication.
While the Anglos could be snobby, they were also buttoned-down and more pragmatic. Being a
decent law-abiding shopkeeper was enough to be Anglo, whereas you needed some degree of
Culture to be French. It's like American fast food is more universally appealing that various
French cuisines that are good but require some degree of refinement to appreciate. Though
Angl0-Americanism wasn't exactly a Fast Culture(like fast food), it was more digestible. (It
was with the fading of Anglo-emphasis in American Culture that it really turned into a Fast
Culture. Today, you can be a total barbarian slob whose only interests are tattoos and going
crazy at Walmart on Black Friday. THAT is Americanism.) Also, America unleashed certain
repressed energies in the Old World that was overly bound by tradition. Americanism unleashed
just enough vigor of barbarism to add charge to Western Civilization. We can see this in the
American Western. It's about creating order and civilization but also about adventurousness
and individuality.
Now, two other factors made America bigger in the world. Jews and blacks. Jews have been
tireless in science, business, entertainment, intellect, and etc. When Anglo-American
creativity, pride, and fire began to fade in the second half of the 2oth century, Jews took
up the slack with lots of great writers, artists, and activists. Jews made Hollywood, the
dream factor of the world. Now, would America have had a great film industry without Jews?
Maybe. After all, Walt Disney wasn't Jewish. But Jews have knack for such things. They also
came to dominate gambling. And many Jews were prominent song-writers of the 20th century.
Of course, Jews drew a lot of their musical influences from blacks. And blacks, with their
jive rhythm and louder voices, played a huge role in the development of American music that
came to influence the world. Even white performers like Elvis heavily drew on black
influence. The black-Jew chemistry in music was highly interesting and productive.
America also gained prominence in sports because blacks are better at it. So, black
Americans outran Europeans and everyone else. Black American boxers beat up Europeans and
Russians. Without Jews, American business, technology, and culture would have grown less. And
without blacks, there would have been no Jazz, Rock, and Rap. And US wouldn't have been
dominant in sports. If not for Joe Louis and Jesse Owens, the top boxers and runners of the
40s could well have been Europeans.
But for the Core Anglo/America(that of Anglo-American and Anglo-Europeans), Jews and
blacks were a mixed blessing. Jews did contribute tremendously to the US, but they also used
much of their capital and influence to subvert, shame, and degrade Anglo/America. Today,
Jewish globo-homo Power is waging race war on Whites.
And even though blacks brought back many medals and trophies for America, what does this
really mean? It means cucky-wuck white boys worshiping black muscle that kicks their white
ass and even kicks the butts of Europeans, the racial brethren of Anglo/Americans. Also,
black sports victory in the US led Europeans to also worship blacks, and so, Europeans also
imported a whole bunch of blacks to play for their nations. What does this all mean? It mean
black guys in Europe kicking white butt and turning white guys into cucky-wuck wussies who
surrender their jungle-feverish white whores to Negroids.
And together, Jews and blacks promote interracism where white guys are supposed to act
like guilt-ridden wussy-cucks while white women are infected with jungle fever for Negro
dongs and act like Ariana Grande who tanned her skin to near-blackness and imitates black
ho's with more butts than brains.
Today, despite cultural and moral decay of the US, there is still the land that produces
tons of food, natural resources, and etc. And where money is king, the US attracts smart
people from all over the world to try their luck in Hollywood, Las Vegas, Wall Street,
Silicon Valley, and etc. In some ways, the total hollowness of American culture is liberating
for many who don't want any restraints to their dreams.
Also, US controls the world currency, and it can keep printing money. US also benefits
from the fact that, no matter how corrupt and rotten it is, there are many nations that are
even more corrupt and rotten.
People tend to compare US with other empires like Roman, British, and French, but it
overlooks one important factor. US would be a great power WITHOUT an empire. Indeed, US
itself like an imperial nation in its own right. It has both head and body. In contrast, Rome
as a great power relied on ruling over vast non-Roman territory. Rome itself was a head
without a body. Same with the Brits and the French. Lose their foreign empires, and they were
no longer awesome powers. They could still be local great powers but not world powers.
So, when Rome lost its colonies, it was finished as a superpower. Worse, it got
conquered.
When the British lost its colonies, its days as great power was over too.
But even if US brings home all its military from abroad, it would still be a superpower.
And even if US cut off all trades with other nations, it could survive as a great power. The
only other nations with this capacity today are China, Russia, and Brazil. China still seems
to be rising. Russia is holding steady but has problems of corruption and laziness. Brazil
has too many blacks, and it will never rise.
Also, empires like Rome were vulnerable because its weaponry wasn't all that more advanced
that those of its enemies. It all came down to spear, sword, and arrows, something the
barbarians and others had as well. For Rome to remain on top, it had to be ultra-disciplined,
but it's difficult to maintain that level of militancy over time. People burn out eventually.
In contrast, the US has advanced weapons and can blow up any number of invaders or attackers.
Look what happened to Japan in WWII. So, most Americans can be slobs who never served in the
military but still feel safe.
And yet, there is the problem of non-white invasion facing both US and EU. Both US and EU
have the technological and military means to stop the invasion. But they don't. If anything,
the elites welcome the invasion, and even many ordinary folks support it? Why? Because the
command-center of the West has been infiltrated and re-programmed to reject race-ism. That's
all it took. It's like TERMINATOR 2. The robot that was originally programmed to fight humans
was reprogrammed to defend humans. Same machine but different code, thereby radically
different behavior.
At one time, US had been coded to be gloriously race-ist. But upon the re-coding by Jews
and Wasp 'progressives', the new Americanism was virulently anti-race-ist. Indeed, the worst
sin according to PC is for whites to side with other whites. Whites can now be 'good' only by
welcoming endless immigration in the name of Diversity. Whites can gain moral credit only by
supporting OTHER peoples.
This is, why, for the time being, whites must support Indian-Zionism(or Inzionism), the
idea that Indians are the original owners of the land(just like Jews were original owners of
Zion) and that the biggest historical 'sin' of America was 'genocide' of the Indians.
Inzionists must conflate immigration with imperialism with 'genocide'. To bring justice to
the Indians, all future immigration must be ended RIGHT NOW. And all good Americans must work
to restore Indian pride and numbers.
Now, if whites could be gloriously race-ist, they wouldn't have to resort to Inzionism.
But since PC says whites must serve others, whites should primarily get behind Indians and
make the case that, because Immigration-Imperialism led to 'genocide' of Indians, there must
be no more Immigration-invasion because America is really Indian land, which means that the
main moral obligation of whites is to restore Indian pride and numbers.
Anyway, on the matter of immigration, the general rule should be ALLOW IN PEOPLE WHO ARE
COMPARABLE TO YOUR PEOPLE IN NATURAL ABILITY. If you bring over lots of real dummies, they
will drag society down with ineptitude and stupidity. There will be a huge permanent
underclass.
But if you let in people who are considerably smarter than your people, they will take
over command centers and may work against your people. Sure, smart people will contribute to
society, but they may use their wealth and clout not for the host majority but
against them. Also, don't let in a race that is stronger than yours. Such race will
beat up your kids in school, streets, in sports, and take your womenfolk. Just look what
blacks are doing to whites. It's reducing white men to a bunch of pathetic cucks.
It is a good analysis which emphasises the momentum the USA has built up – which
will almost certainly mean continued global dominance into the second half of the 21st
century even while the Chinese economy becomes much larger. Short of a large scale nuclear
war (US-China or US-Russia) I don't see that changing. China cannot challenge the USA for
cultural, financial-system, or political-structure global dominance, does not wish to
challenge the USA for military dominance. At some point overwhelming Chinese economic power
will cause a flip, but without an existential war like WW2 that will likely take longer than
the 50 years it took the USA to replace Britain – and Britain never had the same
full-spectrum global dominance as the post-Cold War USA.
In terms of weakness and decline, the flip from an Anglo-Germanic-Celtic dominated nation
to a Jewish and "multicultural" dominated nation also occurred around the end of the Cold War
and the failure of GHW Bush to achieve re-election. This puts the US leadership class
misaligned with the 'grunts' the US needs for many aspects of its global dominance, military
especially, and a growing internal tension. The US judiciary's increasing hostility to the
founding-stock people is notable, along with of course the media and entertainment
industries, and now even the Silicon Valley corporations. But I think the
weakening/fracturing process is still at an early stage and I would be surprised to see
secession in mid century. It will take a major failure of the US empire's global hegemonic
strategy to see the nation 'flip' again, into outright rebellion against the ruling elites.
As I said, a disastrous war with Russia or China seems the likeliest trigger – I think
currently the elites are sufficiently aware of this danger to avoid it, but their own quality
is declining as they become more entrenched. A more speculative risk would be the USA taking
the 'wrong' side in a European civil war – bombing nationalists on behalf of the EU,
say, or of 'persecuted' Muslims – thus bringing internal US fractures to a head. I
think this is relatively unlikely since it would require (a) such a conflict to occur and (b)
the US leadership class to critically misunderstand their founding-stock subjects and their
ability to control the opinions of those subjects. Whereas an accidental war with Russia or
China is well within the current realm of reasonable contemplation.
In the absence of such a break-point, I can see the USA remaining both intact and globally
dominant through the end of the 21st century, even while China's economy becomes several
times larger in real terms.
And, who knows, Mormons in the asteroid belt, bringing the two thousand year Germanic
expansion wave out into the solar system and beyond.
The author may be right that 'American hegemony or exceptionalism' will be around for a
long while yet, but that status will not 'prove eternal'. Whatever else, that is true.
Nations rise and gain power. Then they must retain that power. And when they lose it they
seek to regain it.
As I suggested in a comment to your previous column: the USA is managed by a group of
tight-knit aces of power management.
If there is one thing the country will be exceptionally adept at, it will be what relates
with power (and propaganda).
Admittedly, one can wonder how much of the U.S. figure represents "real" wealth as
opposed to accounting gimicks, e.g. health insurance and whatnot. On the whole, I am
inclined to say it is real.
On the whole I can state that it is gimmick but that will require operating with apparatus
which is beyond the field of "expertise" of American "economists", granted with some notable
exceptions. I will omit here the issue of continental warfare and of American real military
history, but it was primarily lack of those which drove initial accumulation and creation of
the infrastructure. WW II was a great facilitator of growth of American prosperity.
Then again checking the growth of Russian power seemed imperative for the Brits
Oceania against Eurasia. The ocean master against the landmass master. This conflict is old
and deeply rooted.
Today, US island replaces UK island. Putin replaces French king LouisXIV, or emperor
Napoleon, or fuehrer Hitler. But the root of the conflict did not change.
No mystery at all Just scale of economy and a more advance form of colonization.
All wealth starts from natural resources plus labour. Everything in our daily life comes
from nature, food, clothes, furnitures, plastic boxes, TV, smartphones, cars come from soil,
forest, oil, mineral ore etc.
Old Europe went to foreign lands to exploit natural resources and labour.
America imported slaves and immigrants to be exploited.
China exploit our own existing population.
The rise of America before WW2 is no mystery, just the scale of economy. Check the world
powers of the past few centuries, Spain-> Britain-> Germany-> USA/Soviet Union->
China, each has a bigger population than the last. The trend is clear.
After WW2, the US established an improved and more effective form of colonization than the
old European one.
The major change is the means to control the colonies, it changed from brute force of
military to soft power of media/intelligence, to control both the masses and the elite. And
the exploit changed from real materials to financial.
This "capital + media" has worked so spectacularly well that countries around the world
fought to become US colony, willingly and proudly
Truly impressive aaccomplishment Perhaps America really is run by the Jews, the game is
much superior than the Anglo or other old Europe.
The uniqueness of Anglo-American culture is also evident in the very prestige of
Founding Fathers and of the Constitution. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the U.S.
is one of the only countries in the world with a genuine constitution in the ancient sense,
as most memorably expressed by Aristotle: not merely a dead text, a cold set of procedures,
but a Lawgiver's prescriptions for a way of life informed by a certain culture and ethos.
As Aristotle said: "a constitution is the way in which a city lives" (Politics 4.11,
1295a34).
The ruling class has wiped it's ass with the(not worth the hemp it was written on)
constitution a long, long time ago – the ink was barely dry.
Who would expect rulers to constrain themselves, by a document written by people that they
themselves would consider terrorists? Not a chance.
As for rights? What you have in that document are temporary privileges , that can be
taken away anytime, as they already have in the past – usually in the name of national
security; infact, the whole damn document can be nullified in the name of national Security,
and the stupid, dumb, fat, lazy people would go right along with it, because it's already
happened!
"... America's presence in Syria, like Jim Mattis himself, is an artifact of another era, the failed GWOT. As a Marine, Mattis served in ground combat leadership roles in Gulf Wars I and II, and also in Afghanistan. He ran United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, the final years of The Surge in Iraq and American withdrawal afterwards. There is no doubt why he supported the American military presence in Syria, and why he resigned to protest Trump's decision to end it: Mattis knew nothing else. His entire career was built around the strategy of the GWOT, the core of which was to never question GWOT strategy. Mattis didn't need a reason to stay in Syria; being in Syria was the reason. ..."
"... So why didn't Trump listen to his generals? Maybe because the bulk of their advice has been dead wrong for 17 years? ..."
"... The war on terror failed. It should have been dismantled long ago. Barack Obama could have done it, but instead became a victim of hubris and bureaucratic capture, and allowed it to expand. His supporters give him credit for not escalating the war in Syria, but leave out the part about how he also left the pot to simmer on the stove instead of removing it altogether. ..."
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
"... . He is permanently banned from federal employment and Twitter. ..."
"... The GWOT was not only a failure, it was a fraud. Saddam's Iraq was secular and had nothing to do with terrorism. The same can be said for Libya and Syria. We armed and trained jihadis for the purpose of overthrowing Assad. How is that fighting terrorism? The war on terror was a deception, to cover for wars which were aggressive and unjustified. These wars were not just a failure, they were criminal and should be a source of shame and sorrow for our country. The men who orchestrated these wars did so by lying to the American people every step of the way, with the media repeating their every lie and distortion with robotic consistency. The neocon planners and all their willing accomplices deserve a special place in hell for the death and destruction they have wrought. Thank God the neocon era seems to be coming to a close. Thank God for Donald Trump, with all his flaws, for having the guts and decency to put an end to this prolonged military outrage. ..."
"... It's strange that Mr. van Buren celebrates the exit of Mattis as symbolizing the end of a long-discredited policy when Mattis was hired less than 2 years ago, many years after that policy became discredited, and after Mattis's hirer ran for President on a platform diametrically opposed to the discredited policy while denouncing the discredited policy. Now we find out belatedly that the only reason President Trump hired Mattis was because Mattis was fired for insubordination by former President Obama which incumbent President Trump hates, and for which a strong motivating factor is doing everything opposite of Obama. So now incumbent President Trump finds to his dismay that Mattis is insubordinate to himself as well. And yet Mr. van Buren thinks the important focus of this development is Mattis ..."
"... "The raw drive to insta-hate everything Trump does is misleading otherwise thoughtful people. So let's try a new lens: during the campaign Trump outspokenly denounced the waste of America's wars. Pro-Trump sentiment in rural areas was driven by people who agreed with his critique, by people who'd served in these wars, whose sons and daughters had served, or, given the length of all this, both. Since taking office, the president has pulled U.S. troops back from pointless conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Congress may yet rise to do the same for American involvement in Yemen. No new wars have been started It is time for some old ideas to move on." ..."
"... The GWOT was a repudiation of the Powell Doctrine. Almost 20 years on, Powell looks like genius and the neocons like a bunch of morons. ..."
"... The retreat from Syria does not mean a U.S. retreat from its role as the Global Cop Gorilla. The Pentagon is merely changing its primary target set from the GWOT actors to the "revisionist powers". ..."
"... The National Defense Strategy Commission's report, ironically and perversely released by the "United States Institute of Peace", validates the fear-monger claims and also the claims to more TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to feed the Gorilla as it marauds around the perimeter of Asia. ..."
"... "There is no pleasure in watching Jim Mattis end his decades of service with a bureaucratic dirty stick shoved at him as a parting gift." ..."
"... "Don't make me have to kill you" ..."
"... It's no coincidence that Netanyahu's government fell apart today. Another good riddance. May the Israelis elect a new PM who actually wants peace in the Mideast. ..."
"... The War Party is still The War Party -- which is why so many of us who are strong Trump supporters have never joined the Republican Party and have no plans to join. This moment in history is particularly instruction. The Democrats have blown their cover. The Democratic Party is as much The War Party as the Republican Party. ..."
The New York Times , its journalists in mourning over the loss of a war,
ask , "Who will protect America now?" Mattis the warrior-monk is juxtaposed with the
flippant commander-in-Cheeto. The Times sees strategic disaster in an "abrupt and
dangerous decision, detached from any broader strategic context or any public rationale, [that]
sowed new uncertainty about America's commitment to the Middle East, [and] its willingness to
be a global leader."
"A major blunder," tweeted Senator Marco Rubio.
"If it isn't reversed it will haunt America for years to come." Senator Lindsey Graham called
for congressional hearings. And what is history if not irony? Rubio talks of haunting foreign
policy decisions in Syria seemingly without knowledge of previous calamities in Iraq. Graham
wants to hold hearings on quitting a war Congress never held
hearings on authorizing.
That's all wrong. Jim Mattis's resignation as defense secretary (
and on Sunday , Brett McGurk, as special envoy to the coalition fighting ISIS) and Trump's
decision to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan are indeed significant. But that's because they
mark the beginning of the end of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), the singular, tragic, bloody
driver of American foreign policy for almost two decades.
Why does the U.S. have troops
in Syria?
To defeat the Islamic State? ISIS's ability to hold ground and project power outside its
immediate backyard was destroyed somewhere back in 2016 by an unholy coalition of American,
Iranian, Russian, Syrian, Turkish, and Israeli forces in Iraq and Syria. Sure, there are
terrorists who continue to set off bombs in ISIS's name, but they are not controlled or
directed out of Syria. They are most likely legal residents of the Western countries they
attack, radicalized online or in local mosques. They are motivated by a philosophy, which
cannot be destroyed on the ground in Syria. This is the fundamental failure of the GWOT: that
you can't blow up an idea.
Regime change? It was never a practical idea. As in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, there was
never a plan for what to do next, for how to keep Syria from descending into complete chaos the
day Assad was removed. And though progressives embraced the idea of getting rid of another
"evil dictator" when it came through the mouthpiece of Obama's own freedom fighter Samantha
Power, the same idea today has little drive behind it.
Russia? Overwrought fear of Moscow was once a sign of unhealthy paranoia satirized on The
Twilight Zone . Today, Russia hate is seen as a prerequisite to patriotism, though it still
makes no more sense. The Russians have long had a practical relationship with Syria, having
maintained a naval base at Tartus since 1971, which they will continue to do. There was never a
plan for the U.S. to push the Russians out -- Obama in fact saw the Russian presence are part
of the solution
in Syria. American withdrawal is far more of a return to status quo than anything like a win
for Putin. (Elsewhere at TAC , Matt Purple
pokes more holes in Putin paranoia.)
The Kurds? The U.S.-Kurd story is one of expediency over morality. We've used them only
because, at every sad turn, there's been no force otherwise available in bulk. The Kurds have
been abandoned many times by America: in 1991 when it refused to assist them in breaking away
from Saddam Hussein following Gulf War I, when it insisted they remain part of a "united Iraq"
following Gulf War II, and most
definitively in 2017 following Gulf War III when the U.S.
did not support their independence referendum, relegating them to Baghdad's forever
half-loved stepchild.
After all that, America's intentions toward the Kurds in Syria are barely a sideshow-scale
event. The Kurds want to cleave off territory from Turkey and Syria, something neither nation
will
permit and something the U.S. quietly understands would destabilize the region. Mattis, by
the way, supported NATO ally Turkey in its fight against the Kurds, calling them an "active
insurgency inside its borders."
Iran? Does the U.S. really have troops in Syria to brush back Iranian influence? As with
"all of the above," that genie got out of the bottle years ago. Iranian power in the greater
Middle East has grown dramatically since 2003, and has been driven at every step by the
blunders of the United States. If the most powerful army in the world couldn't stop the
Iranians from essentially winning Gulf Wars II and III, how can 2,000 troops in Syria hope to
accomplish much?
The United States, of course, wasn't even shooting at the Iranians in Syria; in most cases
it was working either with them or tacitly alongside them towards the goal of killing off ISIS.
Tehran's role as Assad's protector was set as America rumbled about regime change. Iran has
since pieced together a
land corridor to the Mediterranean through Iraq and Syria, which it will not be giving up,
certainly not because of the presence of a few thousand Americans.
What remains is that once-neocon, now progressive catch-all: we need to stay in Syria to
preserve American credibility. While pundits can still get away with this line, the rest of the
globe already knows the empire has no clothes. Since 2001, the United States has spent some $6
trillion on its wars, and killed multiple 9/11s worth of American troops and foreign civilians.
The U.S. has
tortured , still maintains its gulag at Guantanamo, and, worst of all credibility-wise, has
lost on every front. Afghanistan after 17 years of war festers. Nothing was accomplished with
Iraq. Libya is a failed state. Syria is the source of a refugee crisis whose long-term effects
on Europe are still being played out. We are the "indispensable nation" only in our own minds.
A lot of people around the world probably wish America would just stop messing with their
countries.
So why does the U.S. have troops in Syria? Anyone? Bueller? Mattis?
America's presence in Syria, like Jim Mattis himself, is an artifact of another era, the
failed GWOT. As a Marine, Mattis served in ground combat leadership roles in Gulf Wars I and
II, and also in Afghanistan. He ran United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, the final
years of The Surge in Iraq and American withdrawal afterwards. There is no doubt why he
supported the American military presence in Syria, and why he resigned to protest Trump's
decision to end it: Mattis knew nothing else. His entire career was built around the strategy
of the GWOT, the core of which was to never question GWOT strategy. Mattis didn't need a reason
to stay in Syria; being in Syria was the reason.
So why didn't Trump listen to his generals? Maybe because the bulk of their advice has
been dead wrong for 17 years? Instead, Trump plans a dramatic
drawdown of troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. presence in Iraq has dwindled from combat to
advise and assist. Congress seems poised to end U.S. involvement in Yemen
against Mattis's advice.
There is no pleasure in watching Jim Mattis end his decades of service with a bureaucratic
dirty stick shoved at him as a parting gift. But to see this all as another Trump versus the
world blunder is very wrong. The war on terror failed. It should have been dismantled long
ago. Barack Obama could have done it, but instead became a victim of hubris and bureaucratic
capture, and allowed it to expand. His supporters give him credit for not
escalating the war in Syria, but leave out the part about how he also left the pot to
simmer on the stove instead of removing it altogether.
The raw drive to
insta-hate everything Trump does is misleading otherwise thoughtful people. So let's try a
new lens: during the campaign Trump outspokenly denounced
the waste of America's wars. Pro-Trump sentiment in rural areas was
driven by people who agreed with his critique, by people who'd served in these wars, whose
sons and daughters had served, or, given the length of all this, both. Since taking office, the
president has pulled U.S. troops back from pointless conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Congress may yet rise to do the same for American involvement in Yemen. No new wars have been
started. Though the results are far from certain, for the first time in nearly 20 years,
negotiations are open again with North Korea. Mattis's ending was clumsy, but it was a long
time coming. It is time for some old ideas to move on.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan . He is permanently
banned from federal employment and Twitter.
I'm about as left wing as they come and have had a distain for Trump for decades. But, if he
can put an end to the GWOT and truly pull America out of those disasters I protested against
back in 2001-2002 (not to mention Libya and Yemen) then he will be my favorite modern
president. Granted, that's a low bar. I've not had one in my lifetime that was worth
admiring, but would be a welcome change.
I have my doubts he'll be able to pull it off but even if he manages to just not start any
new wars that would be a novel new direction for us.
It's good for Van Buren to remind people that our relationship with the Kurds has long been one
of support when it is convenient and abandonment when it is not. For left and right to feign
concern now is quite hypocritical.
Reading this offers some hope though the bulk of coverage on the Syria withdrawal from left
and right has been most depressing. May Mattis (and his ilk) go far and may it be soon!
Amen to everything in this article. I voted for Trump because of the way he strongly denounced
the Iraq war and our policies of interventionism and nation building in general. It has taken
two full years, but finally he is delivering what I hoped for. The media is trying to turn this
into another Trump smear issue, but I expect them to fail at this. At this point in time how
many people take the news channel narrative seriously? Especially if Trump removes our troops
from Afghanistan, I expect his popularity to soar.
The GWOT was not only a failure, it was a fraud. Saddam's Iraq was secular and had
nothing to do with terrorism. The same can be said for Libya and Syria. We armed and trained
jihadis for the purpose of overthrowing Assad. How is that fighting terrorism? The war on
terror was a deception, to cover for wars which were aggressive and unjustified. These wars
were not just a failure, they were criminal and should be a source of shame and sorrow for our
country. The men who orchestrated these wars did so by lying to the American people every step
of the way, with the media repeating their every lie and distortion with robotic consistency.
The neocon planners and all their willing accomplices deserve a special place in hell for the
death and destruction they have wrought. Thank God the neocon era seems to be coming to a
close. Thank God for Donald Trump, with all his flaws, for having the guts and decency to put
an end to this prolonged military outrage.
It's strange that Mr. van Buren celebrates the exit of Mattis as symbolizing the end of a
long-discredited policy when Mattis was hired less than 2 years ago, many years after that
policy became discredited, and after Mattis's hirer ran for President on a platform
diametrically opposed to the discredited policy while denouncing the discredited policy. Now we
find out belatedly that the only reason President Trump hired Mattis was because Mattis was
fired for insubordination by former President Obama which incumbent President Trump hates, and
for which a strong motivating factor is doing everything opposite of Obama. So now incumbent
President Trump finds to his dismay that Mattis is insubordinate to himself as well. And yet
Mr. van Buren thinks the important focus of this development is Mattis
"The raw drive to insta-hate everything Trump does is misleading otherwise thoughtful
people. So let's try a new lens: during the campaign Trump outspokenly denounced the waste of
America's wars. Pro-Trump sentiment in rural areas was driven by people who agreed with his
critique, by people who'd served in these wars, whose sons and daughters had served, or, given
the length of all this, both. Since taking office, the president has pulled U.S. troops back
from pointless conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Congress may yet rise to do the same
for American involvement in Yemen. No new wars have been started It is time for some old ideas
to move on."
The President made the right decision. I WISH it had been reached in a more traditional manner
-- going thru the NSC and such, but we had no achievable strategic goals and were really only a
bit player. The very real danger was that we were dancing around the Russians like two
porcupines making love with the current "Russia!Russia!Russia!" political freakout preventing
what could have been a genuine opportunity for cooperation in at least one area. Syria will not
be any more chaotic for our departure, infact given less scrutiny and no danger of accidental
WW III, the Russians/Iranians/Syrian gov't may be able to wrap this up more faster.
Russia also has interest in Kurdish welfare and as 15% of Israelis ARE Russians, their
wellfare as well. In an administration that needed to project credibility, SEC Mattis was a
good choice and has done some great things cutting alot of uneeded red tape & worthless
'training' and giving clear priorities for the services. But, he's opposed almost everything
the President including the Trans ban so it was 'when not if'.
It all makes sense once you understand that by "restraint" they mean "leave American soldiers
as hostages to fortune in Syria!" and "unlimited mulligans for failed generals in Afghanistan!"
and "let's provoke Erdogan into releasing two or three million refugees into Europe!"
The Times sees strategic disaster in an "abrupt and dangerous decision, detached from any
broader strategic context or any public rationale, [that] sowed new uncertainty about
America's commitment to the Middle East, [and] its willingness to be a global leader."
Geez. I can also come up with something like this artwork by the Times journalists.
Here: "The lack of correlation between convergences caused an unwanted bifurcation of
idiosyncratic dichotomies". Twaddle? But how badass is sounds! Just read it aloud -- and you'll
see the credibility glittering like Swarovski crystals all over the place.
Merry Christmas to the MSM. I wish them to start writing something meaningful next year.
The retreat from Syria does not mean a U.S. retreat from its role as the Global Cop
Gorilla. The Pentagon is merely changing its primary target set from the GWOT actors to the
"revisionist powers".
Mattis fronted the updated National Defense Strategy. It again fear-mongers out the wazoo
about Russia and China with the only solution being "more, more, more" for the War Machine.
The National Defense Strategy Commission's report, ironically and perversely released by
the "United States Institute of Peace", validates the fear-monger claims and also the claims to
more TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to feed the Gorilla as it marauds around the perimeter of
Asia.
Re: "There is no pleasure in watching Jim Mattis end his decades of service with a
bureaucratic dirty stick shoved at him as a parting gift."
Au Contraire , there is much pleasure watching that sanctified War-Monger and
Pentagon Hack with his contrived "Don't make me have to kill you" schtick ride off
into the sunset.
Unfortunately for those of us not deluded into the Cult of Military Exceptionalism, Mattis
will no doubt segue to Fox News as yet another "Wizened Sage" of Pentagon wisdom and insight,
where he'll live very large for simply gas-bagging his "Warrior Hero" script. And perhaps Mad
Dog will even meander back to General Dynamics to pimp yet again for the Merchants of
Death.
Make no mistake, Mattis and his General pals are enemies of the taxpayers and rank apostates
of the Founders' principles. Mattis may soon be gone, but unfortunately, he won't be
forgotten.
It's good to see Trump finally realizing that he is the president, and not his generals and
"advisors" that no one elected. Goodbye and good riddance to Mattis, Haley et al. Next to go
should be John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner.
It's no coincidence that Netanyahu's government fell apart today. Another good riddance.
May the Israelis elect a new PM who actually wants peace in the Mideast.
"'A major blunder,' tweeted Senator Marco Rubio. 'If it isn't reversed it will haunt America
for years to come.' Senator Lindsey Graham called for congressional hearings. And what is
history if not irony? Rubio talks of haunting foreign policy decisions in Syria seemingly
without knowledge of previous calamities in Iraq. Graham wants to hold hearings on quitting a
war Congress never held hearings on authorizing."
The War Party is still The War Party -- which is why so many of us who are strong Trump
supporters have never joined the Republican Party and have no plans to join. This moment in
history is particularly instruction. The Democrats have blown their cover. The Democratic Party
is as much The War Party as the Republican Party.
Article of interest at link below.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Send the Mad Dog to the Corporate Kennel
by Ray McGovern Posted on December 22, 2018
No wonder Mr. Van Buren is banned from federal employment and Twitter. His clarity and surgical
observations of American interventionism are indeed enlightening. Deep State forces must cringe
when reading his missives.
I don't agree with everything Trump does, but I have high hopes for his intent to extract
American military forces from the Middle East. Having cost trillions of dollars and countless
lives, these profit-motivated, failed expeditions could never be morally justified even if they
were successful.
Being the world's policeman does not make America a benevolent, inspiring global leader. The
opposite is true, as much of the world now perceives America to be a disruptive force,
conspiring against global peace for the benefit of the military industrial complex and
multinational corporations.
Let's pray for a changing tide that steers us further from the brink.
"Now Trump, the guy everyone expected to start new wars"
Hillary supporters said that. The rest of us knew that she was the danger of more and bigger
wars. That was a prime reason to defeat her. Too bad the only way to defeat her was to elect
Trump, but that is on the DNC, since they offered her, and every other Republican was even
worse (Cruz!).
"... The Pity of It All : A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 ..."
"... Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results. ..."
"... Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire. ..."
"... Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. ..."
"... Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. ..."
"... Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. ..."
"... The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality. ..."
"... Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on. ..."
"... "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper" ..."
"... "The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. " ..."
"... Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention. ..."
"... " (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that." ..."
"... But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld? ..."
"... Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS. ..."
"... But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny. ..."
At the Huffington Post, Jim Sleeper addresses
"A Foreign-Policy Problem
No One Speaks About," and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, even if he's not a warmongering neocon
himself. The Yale lecturer's jumping-off point are recent statements by Leon Wieseltier and
David Brooks lamenting the decline of
American power.
In addition to Wieseltier and Brooks, the "blame the feckless liberals" chorus has included Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, David
Frum, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many other American neoconservatives. Some of them have
been chastened, or at least been made more cautious, by their grand-strategic blunders of a few years ago ..
I'm saying that they've been fatuous as warmongers again and again and that there's something pathetic in their attempts to
emulate Winston Churchill, who warned darkly of Hitler's intentions in the 1930s. Their blind spot is their willful ignorance
of their own complicity in American deterioration and their over-compensatory, almost pre-adolescent faith in the benevolence
of a statist and militarist power they still hope to mobilize against the seductions and terrors rising all around them.
At bottom, the chorus members' recurrent nightmares of 1938 doom them to reenact other nightmares, prompted by very similar
writers in 1914, on the eve of World War I. Those writers are depicted chillingly, unforgettably, in Chapter 9, "War Fever," of
Amos Elon's
The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933. Elon's account of Germany's stampede into World
War I chronicles painfully the warmongering hysterics of some Jewish would-be patriots of the Kaiserreich who exerted themselves
blindly, romantically, to maneuver their state into the Armageddon that would produce Hitler himself.
This is the place to emphasize that few of Wilhelmine German's warmongers were Jews and that few Jews were or are warmongers.
(Me, for example, although my extended-family history isn't much different from Brooks' or Wieseltier's.) My point is simply that,
driven by what I recognize as understandable if almost preternatural insecurities and cravings for full liberal-nationalist belonging
that was denied to Jews for centuries in Europe, some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves
into the Iraq War, and they have continued, again and again, to employ modes of public discourse and politics that echo with eerie
fidelity that of the people described in Elon's book. The Americans lionized George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and
many others as their predecessors lionized Kaiser Wilhelm, von Bethmann-Hollweg, and far-right nationalist associates who hated
the neo-cons of that time but let them play their roles .
Instead of acknowledging their deepest feelings openly, or even to themselves, the writers I've mentioned who've brought so
much folly and destruction upon their republic, are doubling down, more nervous and desperate than ever, looking for someone else
to blame. Hence their whirling columns and rhythmic incantations. After Germany lost World War I, many Germans unfairly blamed
their national folly on Jews, many of whom had served in it loyally but only a few of whom had been provocateurs and cheerleaders
like the signatories of [Project for New American Century's] letter to Bush. Now neo-cons, from Wieseltier and Brooks to [Charles]
Hill, are blaming Obama and all other feckless liberals. Some of them really need to take a look in Amos Elon's mirror.
Interesting. Though I think Sleeper diminishes Jewish agency here (Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are no one's proxy) and can't
touch the Israel angle. The motivation is not simply romantic identification with power, it's an ideology of religious nationalism
in the Middle East, attachment to the needs of a militarist Sparta in the Arab world. That's another foreign policy problem no one
speaks about.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:11 pm
"Democracy in in the Middle East" was always just a weasel-word saying of "let's try to improve Israel's strategic position
by changing their neighbours".
The neocons basically took a hardline position on foreign interventionism based out of dual loyalty. This is the honest truth.
For anti-Semites, a handful of neocons will always represent "The Jews" as a collective. For many Jews, the refusal to come to
grips with the rise of the neocons and how the Jewish community (and really by "community" I mean the establishment) failed to
prevent them in their own midst, is also a blemish.
Of course, Jim Sleeper is doing these things now. He should have done them 15-20 years ago or so. But better late than never,
I guess.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:16 pm
P.S. While we talk a lot about neocons as a Jewish issue, it's also important to put them in perspective. The only war that
I can truly think of that they influenced was the Iraq war, which was a disaster, but it also couldn't have happened without 9/11,
which was a very rare event in the history of America. You have to go back to Pearl Harbor to find something similar, and that
wasn't technically a terrorist attack but rather a military attack by Japan.
Leading up to the early 2000s, they were mostly ignored during the 1990s. They did take over the GOP media in the early 90s,
using the same tactics used against Hagel, use social norms as a cover but in actuality the real reason is Israel.
Before the 90s, in the 70s and 80s, the cold war took up all the oxygen.
So yeah, the neocons need to be talked about. But comparing what they are trying to do with a World War is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, talking about Israel – which Sleeper ignored – and the hardline positions that the political class in America have
adopted, if you want to look who have ensured the greatest slavishness to Israel, liberal/centrist groups like ADL, AJC and AIPAC(yes,
they are mostly democrats!) have played a far greater role than the neocons.
But I guess, Sleeper wasn't dealing with that, because it would ruin his view of the neocons as the bogeymen.
Just like "liberal" Zionists want to blame Likud for everything, overlooking the fact that Labor/Mapai has had a far greater
role in settling/colonizing the Palestinian land than the right has, and not to speak about the ethnic cleansing campaigns of
'48 and '67 which was only done by the "left", so too the neocons often pose as a convenient catch-all target for the collective
Jewish failure leading up to Iraq.
And I'm using the words "collective Jewish failure" because I actually don't believe, unlike Mearsheimer/Walt, that the war
would not have gone ahead unless there was massive support by the Israel/Jewish lobby. If Jews had decided no, it would still
have gone ahead. This is also contrary to Tom Friedman's famous saying of "50 people in DC are responsible for this war".
I also think that's an oversimplification.
But I focus more on the Jewish side because that's my side. And I want my community to do better, and just blaming the neocons
is something I'm tired of hearing in Jewish circles. The inability to look at liberal Jewish journalists and their role in promoting
the war to either gentile or Jewish audiences.
Kathleen, May 6, 2014, 6:53 pm
There was talk about this last night (Monday/5th) on Chris Matthew's Hardball segment on Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice pulling
out of the graduation ceremonies at Rutger's. David Corn did not say much but Eugene Robinson and Chris Matthews were basically
talking about Israel and the neocons desires to rearrange the middle east "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad" conversation.
Bumblebye, May 6, 2014, 2:33 pm
"some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War"
Have to take issue with that – the neo-cons hurled young American (and foreign) servicemen and women into that war, many to
their deaths, along with throwing as much taxpayer money as possible. They stayed ultra safe and grew richer for their efforts.
Citizen, May 7, 2014, 9:03 am
@ Bumblebye
Good point. During WW1, as I read the history, the Jewish Germans provided their fair share of combat troops. If memory serves,
despite Weimar Germany's later "stab in the back" theory, e.g., Hitler himself was given a combat medal thanks to his Jewish senior
officer. In comparison to the build-up to Shrub Jr's war on Iraq, the Jewish neocons provided very few Jewish American combat
troops.
It's hard to get reliable stats on Jewish American participation in the US combat arms during the Iraq war. For all I've been
able to ascertain, more have joined the IDF over the years. At any rate, it's common knowledge that Shrub's war on Iraq was instigated
and supported by chicken hawks (Jew or Gentile) at a time bereft of conscription. They built their sale by ignoring key facts,
and embellishing misleading and fake facts, as illustrated by the Downing Street memo.
Keith, May 6, 2014, 7:47 pm
PHIL- Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little
difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which
are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine.
The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's
emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results.
Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal
emphasis on an American dominated global empire.
So yes, the nationalistic emphasis is an anachronism, however, the decline of the US in conjunction with the extension of a
system of globalized domination should hardly be of concern to elite power-seekers who will benefit. In fact, the new system of
corporate/financial control will be beyond the political control of any nation, even the US. If they can pull it off. An interesting
topic no doubt, but one which I doubt is suitable for extended discussion on Mondoweiss. As for power-seeking as a consequence
of a uniquely Jewish experience, perhaps the less said the better.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that
10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with
them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the
same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over the
Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself
is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political
movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty antisemite whose followers killed many thousands
of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished
during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify
with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
(I know I'm always grabbing OT threads of discussion, but when it comes down to it, I know much less about Zionism and Israel/Palestine
than many, if not most of the regular commenters here.)
I also am going to drift further off-topic by saying there is strong evidence that the slaughter in Odessa last Friday was
highly orchestrated and not solely the result of spontaneous mob violence. Very graphic and disturbing images in all of these
links:
" and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, ..>>
Stop it Sleeper. Do not continue to use the victim card ' to explain' the trauma, the insecurities, the nightmares, the angst,
the feelings, the sensitivities, blah blah, blah of Zionist or Israel.
That is not what they are about. These are power mad psychos like most neocons, period.
And even if it were, and even if all the Jews in the world felt the same way, the bottom line would still be they do not have
the right to make others pay in treasure and blood for their nightmares and mental sickness.
As near as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), the Ukrainians themselves are about half and half pro Russia and Pro NATO.
Your glance at the history of the region as to why this is so, and your text on historical Ukranian suffering and POTV on MW commentary
on this –did not help your analysis and its conclusion.
There's a difference between isolationism and defensive intervention, and even more so, re isolationism v. pro-active interventionism
"in the name of pursuing the democratic ideal". See Ron Paul v. PNAC-style neocons and liberal Zionists.
Also, if you were Putin, how would you see the push of NATO & US force posts ever creeping towards Russia and its local environment?
Look at the US military postings nearing Russia per se & those surrounding Iran. Compare Russia's.
And note the intent to wean EU from Russian oil, and as well, the draconian sanctions on Iran, and Obama's latest partnering
sanctions on Russia.
Imagine yourself in Putin's shoes, and Iran's.
Don't abuse your imagination only by imagining yourself in Netanyahu's shoes, which is the preoccupation of AIPAC and its whores
in the US Congress.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes
that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition
with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on
the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over
the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel
itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support
the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty anti-Semite whose followers killed
many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those
left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-Zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any
of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
Yonah writes The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal. If the US is not able to back up our attempt to help them gain their
freedom it is not something to celebrate, but something to lament.
What are you saying? Ukraine has been an independent nation for 22 years. What freedom is this? What we have witnessed is that
one half of Ukraine has gotten tired that the other half keeps on electing candidates that represent those Ukrainians that identify
with Russian culture. They (the western half) successfully staged a coup and purged the other (eastern half) from the government.
You call that "freedom". Doesn't it embarrass you, Yonah, that the armed militias that conducted that coup are descendants of
the Bandera organization.
Does that ring a bell? These are the Ukrainians that were involved in the holocaust. Does Babi Yar stir any memories Yohan?
It was a massacre of 40,000 Jews just outside of Kiev in 1942. It was the single largest massacre of Jews during WWII. The massacre
was led by the Germans ( Einsatzgruppe C officers) but was carried out with the aid of 400 Ukrainian Auxillary Police. These were
later incorporated into the 14th SS-Volunteer Division "Galician" made up mostly Ukrainians. The division flags are to this day
displayed at Right Sector rallies in western Ukraine.
Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were
almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed.
Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis.
Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this
is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia.
Or you can count their billions. In any case, the neutral posture is sensible for Israel here. Which is highly uncharacteristic
for that government.
Toivo S- The history of Jew hatred by certain anti Russian elements in the Ukraine is not encouraging and nothing that I celebrate.
Maybe I have been swayed by headlines and a superficial reading of the situation.
If indeed I am wrong regarding the will of the Ukrainian people, I can only be glad that my opinion is just that, my opinion
and not US or Israel or anyone's policy but my own. I assume that a majority of Ukrainians want to maintain independence of Russia
and that the expressions of rebellion are in that vein.
My people were murdered by the einsatzgruppen in that part of the world and so maybe I have overcompensated by trying not to
allow my personal history to interfere with what I think would be the will of the majority of the Ukraine.
But Toivo S. please skip the "doesn't it embarrass you" line of thought. Just put a sock in it and skip it.
Well thanks for that Yonah. My wife's family descended from Jewish communities in Odessa and Galicia. They emigrated to the US
between 1900 and 1940. After WWII none of their relatives left behind were ever heard from again. Perhaps you have family that
experienced similar stories. What caused me to react to your post above is that you are describing the current situation in Ukraine
as a "freedom" movement by the Ukrainians when the political forces there descended from the same people that killed my inlaws
family (and apparently yours to). Why do you support them?
ToivoS- I support them because I trust/don't trust Putin. I trust him to impose his brand of leadership on Ukraine, I don't trust
him to care a whit about freedom. It is natural that the nationalist elements of Ukraine would descend from the elements that
expressed themselves the last time they had freedom from the Soviet Union, that is those forces that were willing to join with
the Nazis to express their hatred for the communist Soviet Union's rule over their freedom. That's how history works. The nationalists
today descend from the nationalists of yesterday.
But it's been 70 years since WWII and the Ukrainians ought to be able to have freedom even if the parties that advocate for
freedom are descended from those that supported the Nazis. (I know once i include the Nazi part of history any analogies are toxic,
but if I am willing to grant Hamas its rights as an expression of the Palestinian desire for freedom, why would I deny the Ukrainian
foul nationalist parties their rights to express their people's desire for freedom.)
Political parties are not made in a sterile laboratory, they evolve over history and most specifically they emerge from the
past. I accept that Ukrainian nationalism has not evolved much, but nonetheless not having read any polls I assume that the nationalists
are the representatives of the people's desire for freedom. And because Putin strikes me as something primitive, I accept the
Ukrainian desire for freedom.
What are you supporting? Let me refresh your historic memory: Black's Transfer Agreement. Now apply analogy, responding
to ToivoS. Might help us all to understand, explore more skillfully, Israel's current stance on the Putin-Ukranian matter .?
(I think Nuland's intervention caught on tape, combined with who she is married to, already explores with great clarification
what the US is doing.
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play
the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. Most people here would probably disagree with Sleeper, because he does
not deny that the world needs a cop, nor that the US would play a positive role, if it only had the means and the desire to
do so. People here (overwhelmingly) see the US role as a negative one (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let
the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world,"
The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that
embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop,
confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have
us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock
it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality.
Contrast that with the realist or realism approach recommended by George Kennan, and followed by this country successfully
through the end of the Cold War. That approach is conservative and contends we should stay out of wars unless the vital national
security interests of the US are at stake, like protecting WESTERN Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Western Hemisphere. This
meant we could sympathize with the plight of all the eastern Europeans oppressed by the Soviets, but would not defend militarily
the Hungarians (1956) or the Czechs (1968). It also meant we wouldn't send US troops into North Vietnam because we didn't want
to go to war with the Chinese over a country that was at best tangential to US interests. When we varied from that policy (Vietnam
and Iraq wars, Somalia) we paid a very heavy price while doing nothing to advance or protect our vital national security interests.
The sooner this country can return to our traditional realism-based foreign policy the better. Part of that policy would be
to disassociate the US from its entangling alliance with Likud Israel and its US Jewish supporters that espouse the Likud Greater
Israel line.
Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily
involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country.
They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to
get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend
and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews. It is also directed
at Neoconservative foreign policy advocates, comprised of Jews and non-Jews, and overlap between the two groups. Please also note
my use of the term "major role", and that I am not saying the Neocons and their supporters (Jewish or non) were solely responsible
for our involvement in the Iraq war. I am offering these caveats in the hope that the usual changes of antisemitism can be avoided
in your or anyone else's response to my arguments.
The influence of Neocons on US foreign policy has been very harmful to this country and poses a grave danger to its future.
It would be wise for you to reflect on that harm and those dangers and decide whether you belong in the realist camp or want to
continue running with the Neocons.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews.
What about the role of *liberal Zionists*, like Hillary Clinton, in supporting and promoting the Iraq War? Clinton still hasn't
offered an apology for helping to drive the United States in a multi-trillion dollar foreign policy disaster - and she has threatened
to "totally obliterate" Iran.
What about Harry Reid's lavish praise of Sheldon Adelson?
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has for some time billed the Koch brothers as public enemy No.1 .
But billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson? He's just fine, Reid says.
"I know Sheldon Adelson. He's not in this for money," the Nevada Democrat said of Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate who
reportedly spent close to $150 million to support Republicans in the 2012 presidential election."
@ yonah fredman "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper"
Strange
"state into the Armageddon .. "
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to
play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. "
Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention.
" (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they
want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act
like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper
does not say that."
You do tho, without quoting anyone "here".
BTW Pajero, strawmen no matter how lengthy and seemingly erudite, rarely walk anywhere
I'm going to put this down as Jewish navel gazing.
Jews are disproportionately liberal. Jews make up a huge chunk of the peace movement. Jews are relative to their numbers on
the left of most foreign policy positions.
Iraq was unusual in that Jews were not overwhelming opposed to the invasion, but it is worth noting the invasion at the time
was overwhelming popular. Frankly given the fact that Jews are now considered white people and the fact that Jews are almost all
middle class they should be biased conservative. There certainly is no reason they should be more liberal than Catholics. Yet
they are. It is the degree of Jewish liberalism not the degree of Jewish conservatism that is striking.
But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct
from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul
Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld?
Strongly antiwar incumbent Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC) has won a hotly contested primary tonight, defeating a challenge from
hawkish challenger and former Treasury Dept. official Taylor Griffin 51% to 45%.
Voter turn out was light .. tea party types did a lot of lobbying for Griffin here .but Jones prevailed. Considering the
onslaught of organized activity against him by ECI and the tea partiers for the past month he did well.
@ lysias
Let's refresh our look at what Ron Paul had to say about foreign policy and foreign aid. Then, let's compare what his son has
said, and take a look of his latest bill in congress to cut off aid to Palestine. Yes, you read that right; it's not a bill to
cut off any aid to Israel.
Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will
not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS.
The heavy artillery included the detestable Karl Rove, former Governor and RNC Chair Haley Barber and the War Party's highly
paid chief PR flack, Ari Fleischer.
But it was Neocon central that hauled out the big guns. Bill Kristol was so desperate to thwart the slowly rising anti-interventionist
tide within the GOP that he even trotted out Sarah Palin to endorse Jones's opponent"
But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it
here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence
of the manifest destiny.
"... "Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much" ..."
"... Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses. ..."
"... Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time." ..."
Then-Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-KS, speaking at a rally in 2013. He faces a senate grilling for
his secretary of state nomination today.
Mark Taylor/Creative Commons Nahal Toosi reports
on an upcoming Pompeo speech planned for his visit to Egypt next month:
Pompeo's speech will likely focus heavily on Iran, as have many of his past public
remarks. The chief U.S. diplomat is likely to try to rally Arab capitals to stand with the
United States and thwart Iran's use of proxy forces, support for terrorism and other
activities in the region.
The Trump administration has made a regular habit of denouncing Iran in speeches by top
officials, and the administration's Iran policy has no more international support today than it
did a year ago. It's not clear what purpose another high-profile Iran-bashing session serves.
The administration's talking points are tediously familiar by now, and Pompeo's brusque and
overbearing manner is the opposite of persuasive.
Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't
required to do very much, and every attempt to get these clients to do more has so far produced
no results. The administration's ill-conceived, so-called Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA)
has stalled, thanks to the broader anti-Saudi backlash in Washington and the lack of interest
on the part of many of its would-be members. The administration's Iran policy of regime change
in all but name isn't working as planned and isn't going to work, and there is not much else
for Pompeo to talk about that reflects well on the administration. He and the president have
gone out of their way to thwart Congressional opposition to the war on Yemen, and they have
bent over backwards to make excuses for Saudi crimes.
Pompeo won't admit it in his speech, but the current U.S. role in the region is a
destabilizing one that involves aiding and abetting war crimes and helping to cause mass
starvation.
"Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they
aren't required to do very much"
Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses.
Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep
Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just
don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us
to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid
request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time."
Look at the Russian bots here? Do they actually think they can change anyone's opinions
about their backwater country run by an egotistical authoritarian?
Says the one person making troll comments. "Russia bots" is the liberals new word for
anyone that disagree with them. They need this little labels because they have no facts on
their side. Only hatred for dissenters.
Look at the Russian bots here? Do they actually think they can change anyone's opinions
about their backwater country run by an egotistical authoritarian?
the West seeks no friends , but rather vassals are welcome.
Scores of worldwide diplomats have their backstage sayings : " it's better to be US' foe than ally
because if you are their foe, they'll try to buy you ;
but if you are their ally , they will sell you.".
"... Senate Democrats have once again selected Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as their minority leader without so much as a whisper of a debate or contest. This is galling. The man is incompetent, has abysmal politics, and as we were reminded in a huge New York Times investigation into Facebook, is extremely corrupt. ..."
"... Schumer definitely succeeded in the latter objective. In keeping with his long career as a Wall Street stooge (and in sharp contrast with his predecessor Harry Reid ), he quietly shepherded financial deregulation through. And because he has an almost neoconservative foreign policy, he largely stood aside as Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal for no reason. He also attacked Trump from the right for not being belligerent enough towards North Korea. ..."
"... Where does Schumer come in? Well, in 2017, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) opened an investigation into Facebook over Russiagate and misinformation generally. (Far from being some fire-breathing populist, Warner is among the most milquetoast, business-friendly Democrats who has ever held high office.) But Schumer has raised more money from Facebook than any other member of Congress, his daughter works there , and he helped get his former staffer appointed to the Federal Trade Commission (which oversees Facebook). In concert with Facebook brass, he told Warner to lay off the company, reported the Times : "Mr. Warner should be looking for ways to work with Facebook, Mr. Schumer advised, not harm it." ..."
"... So when it comes to sellout Democrats voting to make another financial crisis more likely, Schumer wrings his hands and hectors progressives not to criticize them too much (after which most of the sellouts lose anyway). But when those same sellouts start criticizing one of his favored sources of campaign cash, suddenly he discovers a knack for backroom arm-twisting and hardball tactics. ..."
Senate Democrats have once again selected Sen. Chuck
Schumer (D-N.Y.) as their minority leader without so much as a whisper of a debate or contest. This is galling. The man is incompetent, has abysmal politics, and as we were reminded in a
huge New
York Times investigation into Facebook, is extremely corrupt.
In his first two years as Senate minority leader, Schumer had two main priorities. First,
preserve his vulnerable moderates running in deeply Trumpy states, like Claire McCaskill in
Missouri, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly in Indiana. Second, use the Trump
presidency to sneak through some odious stuff that most liberals hate.
Schumer definitely succeeded in the latter objective. In keeping with his long career as a
Wall Street stooge (and in sharp contrast with
his predecessor Harry Reid ), he quietly shepherded financial deregulation through. And
because he has an almost neoconservative foreign policy, he
largely stood aside as Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal for no reason. He
also attacked
Trump from the right for not being belligerent enough towards North Korea.
And how about that first goal? Schumer failed spectacularly in preserving most of these
seats. Nearly all of his moderates -- to whom he had granted significant leeway to vote for
President Trump's judicial nominees and bills -- lost. Only Joe Manchin in West Virginia
managed to hang on. The Democratic Senate margin is being somewhat bolstered only by other
candidates knocking off Republican senators in Arizona and Nevada, which Schumer had little to
do with. (Indeed, Harry Reid, who is still helping run a well-oiled
labor turnout machine in Nevada, was the key figure behind the Nevada win.)
This brings me to Facebook. Sheera Frenkel, Nicholas Confessore, Cecilia Kang, Matthew
Rosenberg, and Jack Nicas wrote a jaw-dropping
piece of reporting for the Times about Facebook's lobbying operation. They focused
on how the company has defended itself from evidence that Russian intelligence used the
platform to help Trump win in 2016, and that political extremists have been using the platform
to organize
atrocities , including
genocide .
Basically, the strategy conducted by Facebook's top executives, including CEO Mark
Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, was the filthiest sludge out of the bottom of the lobbying
barrel. (Facebook has defended itself and calls the report "grossly unfair.") The story is very
long, but probably the most explosive revelation was that Facebook hired a soulless Republican
propaganda shop to attack its critics -- notably the Open Markets Institute , which Anne-Marie Slaughter
shoved out of the New America Foundation on
instructions from her Google paymasters -- with anti-Semitic smears, casting it as the tool
of wealthy Jewish philanthropist George Soros. Remarkably, at the very same time they
convinced the Anti-Defamation League to cast criticism of Facebook as anti-Semitic, as both
Zuckerberg and Sandberg are Jewish.
It's worth stopping for a moment to take this in. Just a couple weeks ago a right-wing
terrorist hopped up on anti-Soros propaganda massacred 11 Jews at a synagogue in Pittsburgh.
Another sent a mail bomb to Soros' home. A third person in D.C. was
recently arrested on suspicion of plotting another synagogue shooting.
Where does Schumer come in? Well, in 2017, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) opened an investigation
into Facebook over Russiagate and misinformation generally. (Far from being some fire-breathing
populist, Warner is among the most milquetoast, business-friendly Democrats who has ever held
high office.) But Schumer has
raised more money from Facebook than any other member of Congress, his
daughter works there , and he helped get his former staffer appointed to
the Federal Trade Commission (which oversees Facebook). In concert with Facebook brass, he told
Warner to lay off the company, reported the Times : "Mr. Warner should be looking for
ways to work with Facebook, Mr. Schumer advised, not harm it."
So when it comes to sellout Democrats voting to make another financial crisis more likely,
Schumer wrings his hands and
hectors progressives not to criticize them too much (after which most of the sellouts lose
anyway). But when those same sellouts start criticizing one of his favored sources of campaign
cash, suddenly he discovers a knack for backroom arm-twisting and hardball tactics.
=>
◄
►
◄
❌
►
▲
▼
Remove
from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Add to
Library
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
President Trump has done the right thing with regard to America's troop
deployment in Syria. Trump ordered the 2,000 US troops based in Syria to get out and come home.
Neocons and the US war party are having
apoplexy even though there are some 50,000 US troops spread across the rest of the Mideast.
The US troops parked in the Syrian Desert
were doing next to nothing. Their avowed role was to fight the remnants of the ISIS movement and block any
advances by Iranian forces. As a unified fighting force, ISIS barely exists, if it ever did. Cobbled
together, armed and financed by the US, the Saudis and Gulf Emirates to overthrow Syria's regime, ISIS ran
out of control and became a menace to everyone.
In fact, what the US was really doing was
putting down a marker for a possible US future occupation of war-torn Syria that risked constant clashes
with Russian forces there.
We will breathe a big sigh of relief if
the US deployment actually goes ahead: it will remove a major risk of war with nuclear-armed Russia, whose
forces are in Syria at the invitation of the recognized government in Damascus. The US has no strategic
interest in Syria and no business at all being militarily involved there. Except perhaps that the war party
wants never-ending wars abroad for arms production and promotions.
Trump's abrupt pullout from Syria has
shocked and mortified Washington's war party and neocon fifth column. They were hoping reinforced US forces
would go on to attack Damascus and move against Iranian forces. It was amusing to watch the anguish of such
noted warlike chickenhawks as Sen. Lindsay Graham and the fanatical national security advisor John Bolton as
their hopes for a US war against Syria diminished. Israel was equally dismayed: its strategic plan has long
been to fragment Syria and gobble up the pieces.
The venerable imperial general and
defense secretary, Jim Mattis, couldn't take this de-escalation. He resigned. Marine General Mattis was one
of the few honorable and respected members of the Trump administration and a restraint on the president's
impulses. To his credit, he opposed the reintroduction of torture by US forces, a crime promoted by Trump,
Bolton and Chicago enforcer Mike Pompeo.
What really mattered was not a chunk of
the Syrian Desert. Matis's resignation may have been much more about Afghanistan, America's longest war. The
US has been defeated in Afghanistan, rightly known as the 'Graveyard of Empires.' Yet no one in Washington
can admit this defeat or order a retreat after wasting 17 years, a trillion dollars and thousands of
Americans killed or wounded. Least of all, Gen. Mattis, Bolton or Pompeo who bitterly opposed any peace deal
with the Taliban nationalist movement.
According to unconfirmed media reports,
the US has already thinned out its Afghan garrison of 14,000 plus soldiers. These soldiers' main function is
to guard the corrupt, drug-dealing Afghan puppet government in Kabul and fix Taliban forces so they can be
attacked by US airpower.
Taliban insists it won't begin serious
negotiations until all US and 8,000 foreign troops are withdrawn. In fact, Taliban, which has been quietly
talking to the US in Abu Dhabi, may agreed to a 50% western troops cut in order to begin peace talks.
ORDER IT NOW
The Afghan War has cost the US $1
trillion. Occupying parts of Iraq and Syria has cost a similar amount. Resistance against US rule continues
in both nations. Mattis and his fellow generals really like these wars, but civilian Trump does not. As a
candidate he vowed to end these 'stupid' wars. Let's hope he succeeds over the bitter objections of the
Republican war party, neocons, and military industrial complex.
Syria is an ugly little sideshow. By
contrast, Afghanistan is a dark blot on America's national honor. We watch with revulsion and dismay as the
US deploys B-52 and B-1 heavy bombers to flatten Afghan villages. We watch with disgust as the US coddles
the opium-dealing Afghan warlords and their Communist allies – all in the spurious name of 'democracy.'
If Trump wants to make America great, he
can start by ending the squalid Syrian misadventure and the butchery in Afghanistan.
We should give credit to president Trump for getting the US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan.
Mr. Trump
has always been consistent about the withdrawal of the US Forces from Afghanistan; back in 2011, in an
interview with Bill O'Reilly, Trump reiterated his total dismay and opposition to the waste of lives and
money in Afghanistan; he clearly mentioned that he would withdrawal the US Forces from Afghanistan
immediately, See the link:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/donald-trump-said-afghanistan-president-saying-now/
The same applies to Syria, America has no genuine strategy to remaining in Syria; staying in Syria would
be further destabilizing the region – fueling the Syrian civil war for the sole benefits of Israel and Saudi
Arabia whom had created the ISIS against the Iranian influence in the region.
President Trump deserves to get credit for being courageous and consistent about the US involvement in
the middle east; withdrawing from Syria and Afghanistan is the right strategy, too many lives have perished
and trillion of dollars have been wasted for nothing; let's put an end to this – thank you Mr. Trump for
doing the right thing !
Since
I last wrote about the bipartisan shrieking, hysterical reaction to Trump's planned
military withdrawal from Syria the other day, it hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse. I'm
having a hard time even picking out individual bits of the collective freakout from the
political/media class to point at, because doing so would diminish the frenetic white noise of
the paranoid, conspiratorial, fearmongering establishment reaction to the possibility of a few
thousands troops being pulled back from a territory they were illegally occupying .
Endless war and military expansionism has become so normalized in establishment thought that
even a slight scale-down is treated as something abnormal and shocking. The talking heads of
the corporate state media had been almost entirely ignoring the buildup of US troops in Syria
and the operations they've been carrying out there, but as soon as the possibility of those
troops leaving emerged, all the alarm bells started ringing. Endless war was considered so
normal that nobody ever talked about it, then Trump tweeted he's bringing the troops home, and
now every armchair liberal in America who had no idea what a Kurd was until five minutes ago is
suddenly an expert on Erdoğan and the YPG. Lindsey Graham, who has never met an
unaccountable US military occupation he didn't like, is now suddenly cheerleading for
congressional oversight: not for sending troops into wars, but for pulling them out.
"I would urge my colleagues in the Senate and the House, call people from the
administration and explain this policy," Graham recently told
reporters on Capitol Hill. "This is the role of the Congress, to make administrations
explain their policy, not in a tweet, but before Congress answering questions."
"It is imperative Congress hold hearings on withdrawal decision in Syria --
and potentially Afghanistan -- to understand implications to our
national security," Graham tweeted today .
In an even marginally sane world, the fact that a nation's armed forces are engaged in daily
military violence would be cause for shock and alarm, and pulling those forces out of that
situation would be viewed as a return to normalcy. Instead we are seeing the exact opposite. In
an even marginally sane world, congressional oversight would be required to send the US
military to invade countries and commit acts of war, because that act, not withdrawing them, is
what's abnormal. Instead we are seeing the exact opposite.
A hypothetical space alien observing our civilization for the first time would conclude that
we are insane, and that hypothetical space alien would be absolutely correct. Have some Reese's
Pieces, hypothetical space alien.
It is absolutely bat shit crazy that we feel normal about the most powerful military force
in the history of civilization running around the world invading and occupying and bombing and
killing, yet are made to feel weird about the possibility of any part of that ending . It is
absolutely bat shit crazy that endless war is normalized while the possibility of peace and
respecting national sovereignty to any extent is aggressively abnormalized. In a sane world the
exact opposite would be true, but in our world this self-evident fact has been obscured. In a
sane world anyone who tried to convince you that war is normal would be rejected and shunned,
but in our world those people make six million dollars a year reading from a teleprompter on
MSNBC.
How did this happen to us? How did we get so crazy and confused?
I sometimes hear the analogy of sleepwalking used; people are sleepwalking through life, so
they believe the things the TV tells them to believe, and this turns them into a bunch of
mindless zombies marching to the beat of CIA/CNN narratives and consenting to unlimited
military bloodbaths around the world. I don't think this is necessarily a useful way of
thinking about our situation and our fellow citizens. I think a much more useful way of looking
at our plight is to retrace our steps and think about how everyone got to where they're at as
individuals.
We come into this world screaming and clueless, and it doesn't generally get much better
from there. We look around and we see a bunch of grownups moving confidently around us, and
they sure look like they know what's going on. So we listen real attentively to what they're
telling us about our world and how it works, not realizing that they're just repeating the same
things grownups told them when they were little, and not realizing that if any of those
grownups were really honest with themselves they're just moving learned concepts around inside
a headspace that's just as clueless about life's big questions as the day it was born.
And that's just early childhood. Once you move out of that and start learning about
politics, philosophy, religion etc as you get bigger, you run into a whole bunch of clever
faces who've figured out how to use your cluelessness about life to their advantage. You
stumble toward adulthood without knowing what's going on, and then confident-sounding people
show up and say "Oh hey I know what's going on. Follow me." And before you know it you're
donating ten percent of your income to some church, addicted to drugs, in an abusive
relationship, building your life around ideas from old books which were promoted by dead kings
to the advantage of the powerful, or getting your information about the world from Fox
News.
For most people life is like stumbling around in a dark room you have no idea how you got
into, without even knowing what you're looking for. Then as you're reaching around in the
darkness your hand is grasped by someone else's hand, and it says in a confident-sounding
voice, "I know where to go. Come with me." The owner of the other hand doesn't know any more
about the room than you do really, they just know how to feign confidence. And it just so
happens that most of those hands in the darkness are actually leading you in the service of the
powerful.
That's all mainstream narratives are: hands reaching out in the darkness of a confusing
world, speaking in confident-sounding voices and guiding you in a direction which benefits the
powerful. The largest voices belong to the rich and the powerful, which means those are the
hands you're most likely to encounter when stumbling around in the darkness. You go to school
which is designed to indoctrinate you into mainstream narratives, you consume media which is
designed to do the same, and most people find themselves led from hand to hand in this way all
the way to the grave.
That's really all everyone's doing here, reaching out in the darkness of a confusing world
and trying to find our way to the truth. It's messy as hell and there are so many
confident-sounding voices calling out to us giving us false directions about where to go, and
lots of people get lost to the grabbing hands of power-serving narratives. But the more of us
who learn to see through the dominant narratives and discover the underlying truths, the more
hands there are to guide others away from the interests of the powerful and toward a sane
society. A society in which people abhor war and embrace peace, in which people collaborate
with each other and their environment, in which people overcome the challenges facing our
species and create a beautiful world together.
People aren't sleepwalking, they are being duped . Duped into insanity in a confusing,
abrasive world where it's hard enough just to get your legs underneath you and figure out which
way's up, let alone come to a conscious truth-based understanding of what's really going on in
the world. But the people doing the duping are having a hard time holding onto everyone's hand,
and
their grip is slipping . We'll find our way out of this dark room yet.
Has anyone noticed that Rachel Maddow with her sooo patronizing, sooo objectionally smug
manner, implying that anyone who likes Trump is laughably pathetic, well – she keeps on
doing this and oddly (and effectively) generates a lot of support for Trump and what he's
doing. Her absolutely foul manner is perfectly crafted to turn folks against her and what she
espouses. You go girl!
It seems to me that, objectively, there are about three basic reasons for Endless War in
the Middle East.
One, to insure the security of the Israeli state. Two, to insure the free flow of cheap ME
petroleum to our 'trading partners' around the world who burn it to make cheap **** and ship
it across sealanes kept open by the U.S. Navy to Walmart and Amazon for resale (on credit!)
to the sheeple. Three, to finance the multi-billion dollar arms-building American MIC.
Purposes One, Two and Three mutually reinforce each other. You don't have to agree with all
Purposes as long as you agree with one of them. Proponents of Purpose One find allies among
the proponents of Purposes Two and Three. And vice versa. And, in a 'virtuous' (or is it
vicious?) circle, all at the top get very rich. The ultra-wealthy supporters of Israel, the
globalists, the corporatists, the militarists and their financiers and media mouthpieces.
Essentially all the new money in the Billionaire Class.
And who is opposed to this little arrangement? A few libertarians, and realists, and some
historians? A few folks on 'conservative' (but not neocon) websites? A few deplorables who
are actually thinking about their own best interests? A few people morally offended by the
notion of living in an 'exceptional' country which sponsors deadly perpetual war? A few
people who think its crazy to go half way around the world to kill people engaged in a
conflict which is critical to their daily lives but theoretical to us? A few men and women
who have seen combat and know the bloody truth? A few people who would prefer to re-invest in
the United States and repair the damage done to this country over the last forty years?
When you think about it the deck is definitely stacked in favor of Endless War. And what
Trump did on Thursday is again rather extraordinary.
"... The Defense Department under Mattis became more opaque and less accountable to the public and Congress. He presided over two years of shameful support for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and he went out of his way to offer absurd justifications for continued U.S. support for the war to the end of his tenure. ..."
"... No less than Secretary Pompeo, Mattis discredited himself in the desperate, unsuccessful effort to derail S.J.Res. 54. An administration that fights as hard as this has to keep the war on Yemen going is definitely not one interested in peace and restraint no matter what else happens. ..."
Officials said Mr. Mattis went to the White House on Thursday afternoon with his
resignation letter already written, but nonetheless made a last attempt at persuading Mr.
Trump to reverse his decision about Syria, which the president announced on Wednesday over
the objections of his senior advisers.
Mr. Mattis, a retired four-star Marine general, was rebuffed. Returning to the Pentagon,
he asked aides to print out 50 copies of his resignation letter and distribute them around
the building.
Mattis' departure from the administration after the midterms had been floated as a
possibility for months, but I don't think anyone seriously expected him to resign suddenly over
a policy disagreement with the president. It is telling and not to Mattis' credit that ending
an illegal war in Syria was the one policy disagreement with Trump that Mattis couldn't
stomach. The Defense Secretary had repeatedly disagreed with Trump on a range of issues, and he
usually lost the internal debate. The only times that he prevailed with Trump were when he
advised him to escalate ongoing U.S. wars, and his influence had waned enough that he couldn't
get his way on that, either. I was extremely
skeptical that a Syria withdrawal would actually happen. Now that Mattis has tried and
failed to reverse that decision, I have to acknowledge that I overestimated the ability of
Trump's advisers to change his mind.
The Defense Department under Mattis became more opaque and less accountable to the
public and Congress. He presided over two years of shameful support for the Saudi coalition war
on Yemen, and he went out of his way to offer absurd justifications for continued U.S. support
for the war to the end of his tenure. The disagreement over Syria will dominate coverage
of Mattis' resignation, but it is important to remember that when it came to the most
indefensible U.S.-backed war he and Trump were always on the same page. No less than
Secretary Pompeo, Mattis discredited himself in the desperate, unsuccessful effort to derail
S.J.Res. 54. An administration that fights as hard as this has to keep the war on Yemen going
is definitely not one interested in peace and restraint no matter what else happens.
As wrong as Mattis was on a number of foreign policy issues, there is a real danger that his
successor could be far worse. Even if Trump doesn't nominate a Tom Cotton or Lindsey Graham,
the next Defense Secretary is very likely to be a yes-man in the mold of Mike Pompeo. Almost
every time that Trump has replaced his top national security officials, he has chosen someone
who will flatter and praise him instead of telling him the truth and giving him the best
advice.
The next Defense Secretary is less likely to resist Trump's belligerent tendencies, and he
is more likely to indulge the president's worst impulses. Just as Pompeo has proven to be a
worse Secretary of State than Tillerson, Mattis' successor will very likely prove to be an
inferior Secretary of Defense.
You're right to fear what may replace him, especially after the disgusting Pompeo replaced
the decent but ineffectual Tillerson, but I'm glad Mattis is gone, especially if he quit over
the Syria decision, a no-brainer which should have been made two years ago.
It's hard to imagine anyone being worse than he was. Sadly, we may not have to imagine
it.
There's also the danger that the elites and establishment will now escalate their efforts to
remove him from office.
I've disagreed with Trump about many things, and I don't like the man, but I still trust
him more than the corrupt incompetents and foreign agents who dragged us into these Middle
East hellholes.
That is the terrible and ongoing damage that must be stopped.
But now that Trump has made a move in the direction of winding it down, you will almost
certainly see the fury and resentment of the elites and establishment redoubled. From their
point of view, the only thing worse than a Trump who doesn't keep his campaign promises is
one who does.
His next appointee will be no better and more than likely worse, a crafty Neocon who will
bite their tongue when they disagree with Trump in order to remain so that he can encourage
his worst tendencies. Bolton is a stellar example of this.
If he appoints someone like Cotton or Gen Jack Keane then Trump will be the last adult in
the room.
My SWAG, and this is merely SWAG, is that, since his election, Trump has given the neocons
everything they wanted or asked for, but he still is allowed any freedom of action.
In spite of governing much like a garden variety Republican, his enemies are still looking
for any excuse to remove him.
This is Trump reminding his enemies that he can do lots of things to upset the apple cart,
so cut him some slack, already.
He has announced his order to withdraw US troops from Syria.
His Defense Secretary James Mattis has resigned. There are rumors National Security
Adviser John Bolton may go too. (Please take
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with you!)
He announced a start to withdrawing from Afghanistan.
He now says he will veto a government funding bill unless he gets $5 billion for his
Wall, and as of 12:01 AM Washington time December 22 the federal government is officially
under partial shutdown.
All of this should be taken with a big grain of salt. While this week's assertiveness
perhaps provides further proof that Trump's impulses are right, it doesn't mean he can
implement them.
Senator Lindsey Graham is demanding
hearings on how to block the Syria pullout . Congress hardly ever quibbles with a
president's putting troops into a country, where the Legislative Branch has legitimate
Constitutional power. But if a president under his absolute command authority wants to pull
them out – even someplace where they're deployed illegally, as in Syria – well hold
on just a minute!
This will be a critical time for the Trump presidency. (And if God is really on his side, he
soon might get
another Supreme Court pick .) If he can get the machinery of the Executive Branch to
implement his decision to withdraw from Syria, and if he can pick a replacement to General
Mattis who actually agrees with Trump's views, we might start getting the America First policy
Trump ran on in 2016.
Mattis himself said in his resignation letter, "Because you have the right to have a
Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these [i.e., support for
so-called "allies"] and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my
position."
Right on, Mad Dog! In fact Trump should have had someone "better aligned" with him in that
capacity from the get-go. It is now imperative that he picks someone who agrees with his core
positions, starting with withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, and reducing confrontation with
Russia.
Former Defense Secretary
Chuck Hagel complains that "our government is not a one-man show." Well, the "government"
isn't, but the Executive Branch is. Article II,
Section 1 : "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America." Him. The President. Nobody else. Period.
Already the drumbeat to saddle Trump with another Swamp critter at the Pentagon is starting:
"Several possible replacements for Mattis this week trashed the president's decision to pull
out of Syria. Retired Gen. Jack Keane called the move a "strategic mistake" on Twitter.
Republican Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) signed a letter demanding
Trump reconsider the decision and warning that the withdrawal bolsters Iran and Russia." If
Trump even considers any of the above as Mattis's replacement, he'll be in worse shape than he
has been for the past two years.
On the other hand, if Trump does pick someone who agrees with him about Syria and
Afghanistan, never mind
getting along with Russia , can he get that person confirmed by the Senate? One possibility
would be to nominate someone like Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney specifically
to run the Pentagon bureaucracy and get control of costs, while explicitly deferring
operational decisions to the Commander in Chief in consultation with the Service Chiefs.
Right now on Syria Trump is facing pushback from virtually the whole Deep State
establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike, as well as the media from Fox News , to NPR ,
to MSNBC . Terror has again gripped the establishment that the Trump who was elected president
in 2016 might actually start implementing what he promised. It is imperative that he pick
someone for the Pentagon (and frankly, clear out the rest of his national security team) and
appoint people he can trust and whose views comport with his own. Just lopping off a few heads
won't suffice – he needs a full housecleaning.
In the meantime in Syria, watch for another "Assad poison gas attack against his own
people." The last time Trump said we'd be
leaving Syria "very soon " was on March 29 of this year. Barely a week later, on April 7,
came a supposed chemical incident in Douma, immediately hyped as a government attack on
civilians
but soon apparent as likely staged . Trump, though, dutifully took the bait, tweeting that
Assad was an "animal." Putin, Russia, and Iran were "responsible" for "many dead, including
women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack" – "Big price to pay." He then for the
second time launched cruise missiles against Syrian targets. A
confrontation loomed in the eastern Med that could to have led to war with Russia. Now, in
light of Trump's restated determination to get out,
is MI6 already ginning up their White Helmet assets for a repeat ?
Trump's claim that the US has completed its only mission, to defeat ISIS, is being compared
to George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner following defeat of Iraq's army and the
beginning of the occupation (and, as it turned out, the beginning of the real war). But if it
helps get us out, who cares if Trump wants to take credit? Whatever his
terrible, horrible, no good, very bad national security team told him, the US presence in
Syria was never about ISIS. We are there as Uncle Sam's Rent-an-Army for the Israelis and
Saudis to block Iranian influence and especially an overland route between Syria and Iran (the
so-called
"Shiite land bridge" to the Mediterranean ).
For US forces the war against ISIS was always a sideshow, mainly carried on by the Syrians
and Russians and proportioned about like the war against the Wehrmacht: about 20% "us," about
80% "them." The remaining pocket ISIS has
on the Syria-Iraq border has been deliberate ly left alone, to keep handy as a lever to
force Assad out in a settlement (which is not going to happen). Thus the claim an American
pullout will
lead to an ISIS "resurgence " is absurd. With US forces ceasing to play dog in the manger,
the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and Iraqis will kill them. All of them.
If Trump is able to follow through with the pullout, will the Syrian war wind down? It needs
to be kept in mind that the whole conflict has been because we (the US, plus Israel, Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, UAE, the United Kingdom, etc) are the aggressors. We sought to use
al-Qaeda and other jihadis to effect regime change via the tried and true method. It
failed.
Regarding Trump's critics' claim that he is turning over Syria to the Russians and Iranians,
Assad is nobody's puppet. He can be allied with a Shiite theocracy but not controlled by it;
Iran, likewise, can also have mutually beneficial ties with an ideologically dissimilar
country, like it does with Christian Armenia. The Russians will stay and expand their presence
but unlike our presence in many countries – which seemingly never ends, for example in
Germany, Japan, and Korea, not to mention Kosovo – they'll be there only as long and to
the extent the Syrians want them. (Compare our eternal occupations with the Soviets' politely
leaving Egypt when Anwar Sadat asked them, or leaving Somalia when Siad Barre wanted them out.
Instead of leaving, why didn't Moscow just do a " Diem " on them?) It
seems that American policymakers have gotten so far down the wormhole of their paranoid
fantasies about the rest of the world – and it can't be overemphasized, concerning areas
where the US has no actual national interests – that we no longer recognize classic
statecraft when practiced by other powers defending genuine national interests (which of course
are legitimate only to the extent we say so).
Anyway, if this week's developments are the result of someone putting something into
Donald's morning Egg
McMuffin , America and the world owe him (or her) a vote of thanks. Let's see more of
the wrecking ball we Deplorables voted for !
Trump thought that by bringing the swamp into his fold he might be able to defang it. He
bent the knee, played nice and kissed the ring but still they kept at him. I think Trump has
had enough of giving a mile for getting an inch. I like Trump when he presents himself as a
human wrecking ball to all the evil plans of the Washington establishment and if he continues
like this I honestly believe he will be reelected in 2020, and one day will be acknowleged as
a true chapion for every day Americans but if he shrinks back into his shadow and gives the
likes of Bolton and Pompeo free reign to **** all over the globe with their insane scheming
he will be a one term failure.
Don't get too excited about the possibility that there may be more kinds of viagra to try
out, Jattras. If Trump recently seems to be more like the candidate we voted for, the real
reason for his reversion back is because the midterm elections are over and Trump kept the
Senate.
Check with me before you start making a lot of crack-pot statements
America's
trade policy is in incoherent shambles. Decades of neoliberal "free trade" pacts -- which as
often as not simply gave corporations an end run around the state, or their very own rigged,
pseudo-legal system -- have created terrible social carnage around the world and a furious
political backlash. And President Trump's incoherent, haphazard response has done little to
change the system, let alone reform it in a sensible fashion.
Overhauling such a gargantuan, world-spanning system is a dizzying task. But Timothy Meyer
and Ganesh Sitaraman at the Great Democracy Initiative have a
new paper that presents a solid starting point for developing a fundamental reform of
American trade structure.
Meyer and Sitaraman identify three large problems with the status quo, and propose policy
solutions for each:
The complicated and unbalanced structure of the bureaucracy that oversees trade
policy
The enormous pro-rich bias that is built into trade deals
How the inequality resulting from trade routinely goes totally unaddressed
Let's take these in turn.
The extant trade bureaucracy -- as usual for the American state -- is highly fragmented and
bizarrely structured. There is the Department of Commerce, the United States Trade
Representative, the Export-Import Bank, and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, plus the
International Development Finance Corporation coming soon. Then there are a slew of other
agencies that have some bearing on trade-related security or economic development.
Meyer and Sitaraman logically suggest combining most of these functions into a single
Department of Economic Growth and Security. The point is not just to streamline the trade
oversight structure, but also to make it consider a broader range of objectives. Neoliberals
insist that trade is simply about making the self-regulating market more "efficient," but trade
very obviously bears on employment, domestic industry, and especially security.
For instance, for all its other disastrous side effects, Trump's haphazard tax on aluminum
has dramatically
revived the American aluminum industry . Ensuring a reasonable domestic supply of key
metals like that is so obviously a security concern -- for military and consumer uses
alike -- that it wouldn't have even occurred to New Deal policymakers to think otherwise. It
takes a lot of ideological indoctrination to think there's no problem when a small price
disadvantage causes a country to lose its entire supply chain of key industrial
commodities.
Then there is the problem of pro-rich bias. Put simply, the last few decades of trade deals
have been outrageously biased towards corporations and the rich. They have powerfully enabled
the growth of
parasitic tax havens , which allow companies to book profits in low-tax jurisdictions,
starving countries of rightful revenue (and often leading to companies piling up gargantuan
dragon hoards of cash they don't know what to do with).
Corporations, meanwhile, have gotten their own fake legal system in the form of
Investor-State Dispute Settlement trade deal stipulations. As I have written before ,
the point of these arbitration systems is to create a legal system ludicrously slanted in favor
of the corporation -- allowing them not just to win almost every time, but to sue over
nonsensical harms like "taking away imaginary future profits."
Meyer and Sitaraman suggest renegotiating the tax portions of trade deals to enforce a
"formulary" tax system -- in which profits are taxed where they are made, not where they are
booked. This would go a considerable distance towards cracking down on tax havens -- who knows,
perhaps Luxembourg might even develop some productive business.
Finally, there is the problem of distributive justice. Again contrary to neoliberal dogma,
trade very often creates winners and losers -- witness the wreckage of Detroit and the fat
salaries of the U.S. executive class. Meyer and Sitaraman suggest new mechanisms to consider
the side effects of trade deals (and ways to compensate the losers), to take action against
abusive foreign nations (for example, by dumping their products below cost, or violating
environmental or labor standards), and finally directly taxing the beneficiaries.
Something the authors don't discuss is the
problem of trade imbalances . When one country develops a surplus (that is, it exports more
than it imports), another country must of necessity be in a deficit. The deficit country in
turn must finance its imports, usually by borrowing. That can easily create a severe economic
crisis if the deficit country suddenly loses access to loans -- which then harms the exporting
country, though not as much. This has been a disastrous problem in the eurozone.
The U.S. does have extremely wide latitude to run a trade deficit, because it controls the
global reserve currency, meaning a strong
demand for dollar-denominated assets so other countries can settle their international
accounts. But this creates its own problems, as discussed above.
To be fair, this is not exactly an omission for a paper focused on domestic policy. Creating
a specifically international trade architecture would require an entire paper of its own, if
not a book or three. But it would be something future trade policymakers will have to
consider.
At any rate, it's quite likely that trade policy will be a major topic of discussion in 2020
-- if for no reason other than Trump's ridiculous shenanigans in the area. However, even that
demonstrates an important fact: The U.S. president has a great deal of unilateral authority
over trade. Democrats should be thinking hard about how they would change things.
This paper is a great place to start.
In response to proposed Senate legislation that would target Russia's state-controlled banks
by freezing their access to dollars -- a step which could genuinely damage the Russian economy
-- Moscow issued a new threat. "If we end up we end up with something like a ban on banking
activities or the use of certain currencies, we can clearly call this a declaration of economic
war," Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev
stated , emphasizing that Moscow would "respond to this war. By economic means, by
political means and if necessary by other means."
... ... ...
Putin doesn't even need to rely on his military to harm American interests either. He could
choose to openly increase economic and political support for North Korea, thereby weakening
Washington's ability to pressure North Korea to curtail its nuclear program. Given that North
Korea remains on the cusp of being able to reach the continental United States with a ballistic
missile this would constitute a significant setback for American interests.
... ... ...
To be clear, Medvedev's threats may be mere bluster, and Moscow could respond to dollar
sanctions by hunkering down even further and try to ride out the economic and political storm.
However, if harsh sanctions were on the verge of causing the Russian economy to collapse --
especially if this resulted in unrest which threatened the stability of the Putin regime --
Moscow might well end up lashing out in unpredictable ways. American policymakers should be
forewarned and prepared.
Josh Cohen contributes to a number of media outlets including National Interest, Foreign
Policy, Reuters, Washington Post and others.
There are so many painful places in the US foreign politics: North Korea, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Latin America, North Africa, Yemen. All this weaknesses could be used
by the US foes and Russia knows it. I won't be surprised if Russia pushes this weakspots.
Yes, the US politicians have to be ready to aggresive and success reaction of Russia. And
they have to make an informed decisions. Very cautiously.
Can someone cite just one instance of American government imposing "sanctions" on a
foreign government where it actually worked to USA interests? Don't cite Iran, Trump scrapped
that deal - so much for negotiation with USA - think Boeing happy about all those lost
airplane orders?
"Russia provoking an armed confrontation in the Sea of Azov" - really? Why the author did
not mention that Ukraine made 2(!) acts of piracy against Russian vessels before Russia
answered? Vessels "Nord" and "Mehanik Pogodin" are still seized by Ukraine against of law,
while Russia inspects vessels in INTERNAL waters of Azov according to law.
Because it is not popular opinion in US massmedia. Ukraine is always right, Russia is
always evil. Nobody want to pay you if you defend Russians. But if you will blame them in all
sins - you have a chance to recive few dollars from Dems or from military corporations.
If you have another opinion - you are russian troll.
Inspection of ships in the Azov Sea is carried out in accordance with the agreement on
economic activities in the Sea of Azov, Russia and Ukraine signed in 2012, Russia did not
inspect Ukrainian ships until 2018, but after threats to blow up the Crimean Bridge, Russia
began using the right to inspect all vessels in the Azov Sea seas
In the Ukraine there is a civil war, Russia's involvement in the poisoning of the "former
Russian spy" has not been proven by anyone, and the holy belief in "election meddling" looks
like a sign of idiocy.
I agree with you, too much lie. These american authors live in their own cloud castle
which has no relations with reality. Only money from military corporations who need
enemy.
Many inconsistencies and blatant lies on this article, but I wish to focus on this
particular one.
The author claims "Russia provoking an armed confrontation in the Sea of Azov that could
serve as a pretext for a significant Russian military escalation in the region -- a step
right out of Moscow's 2008 playbook for its war in Georgia."
The 2008 South Ossetia war has been internationally recognized to be instigated by Georgia
itself (even the official EU report on the subject admitted this clearly). In what way did
Russia provoke the Georgian attack according to the author?
What evidence can he present to support this thesis? Or is he merely lying out of his
teeth?
Russia has attacked many countries, including Afghanistan in 1979 and Ukraine in 2014.
Luckily your terrorist colleague Zakharchenko has been dealt with.
Russia never attacked Ukraine. This propaganda bullshit lives only in someones damaged
brains and on papers of some mass media.
Zakharcheko never made any terror act. He defended his people from Ukraine nazis, who shelled
civil homes, kindergardens and schools from all possible guns. He never harmed any civil
human being. Vice versa - Kiev's bandits shell civil citizens of Donbass every day. There is
"Alley of angels" in Donetsk - the cemetry of kids killed by Kiev's terrorists.
In 1979 USSR entered Afghanistan by REQUEST OF LEGAL GOVERNEMENT of Afganistan. Because US
sponsored and supplied with weapons antigovernment bandits in Afgahnistan. CIA never hided
this. And waht do US do today in Syria? Who asked them to kill people and government forces
in Syria? And why did US sponsored putch in Kiev in 2014?
"... Graham T. Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is the former director of Harvard's Belfer Center and the author of ..."
HE YEAR before he died in 2017, one of America's leading twentieth-century strategic
thinkers, Zbigniew Brzezinski, sounded an alarm. In analyzing threats to American security,
"the most dangerous scenario," he warned, would be "a grand coalition of China and Russia
united not by ideology but by complementary grievances." This coalition "would be reminiscent
in scale and scope of the challenge once posed by the Sino-Soviet bloc, though this time China
would likely be the leader and Russia the follower."
Few observers heard his admonition then. Even fewer today recognize how rapidly this grand
alignment of the aggrieved has been moving from the realm of the hypothetical toward what could
soon become a geostrategic fact. Defying the long-held convictions of Western analysts, and
against huge structural differences, Beijing and Moscow are drawing closer together to meet
what each sees as the "American threat."
For two proud nations with long memories, their convergence also serves as a kind of cosmic
revenge on the diplomatic maneuver Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger orchestrated a half
century ago.
When Nixon became president (in 1969), he and his National Security Advisor Kissinger sought
to establish a relationship with Communist China to widen the divide between it and the Soviet
Union, which they rightly regarded as the preeminent -- indeed, existential -- threat.
Even as they watched communists pursue "wars of national liberation" around the globe, Nixon
and Kissinger embraced George F. Kennan's strategic insight about containment: that nationalism
would prove a sturdier pillar than communism. They also recognized that the crack in the
Eastern Bloc between the Soviet Union and its junior Chinese partner could be widened by deft
U.S. diplomacy at the expense of the Soviets.
We know how the story turned out -- so it is difficult to appreciate how radical this
thought was in 1969, though Nixon had noted a year earlier in an essay in Foreign
Affairs , "There is no place on this small planet for a billion of its potentially most
able people to live in angry isolation." Had Nixon asked his government's interagency process
to consider the possibility of the United States establishing a relationship with Mao's
Communist China, this option would doubtless have been rejected as not just unrealistic, but
unsound. So instead, in a cloak of invisibility worthy of Harry Potter, Nixon sent Kissinger to
Beijing for a series of meetings so secret that even his secretaries of state and defense were
unaware of them. Ultimately, this led to Nixon's historic visit in 1972 to China, recognition
of Beijing (rather than Taipei) as its capital, and the creation of an uneasy but selectively
cooperative relationship that contributed to the ultimate defeat of the Evil Empire.
The Nixon-Kissinger gambit is now known as "playing the China card." Today we should be
asking: is Xi Jinping's China "playing the Russia card?"
THAT THOUGHT seems to strike many Washington strategists as outlandish. Secretary of Defense
James Mattis repeatedly emphasizes Moscow and Beijing's "natural non-convergence of interest."
And the differences in national interests, values and culture are stark. As Russian strategists
think about the longer run, they must view China's rise with consternation. Today's map draws a
line between Russia and China that leaves a large swath of what was in earlier centuries
Chinese on the Russian side of the divide. That border has repeatedly seen violent clashes, the
last in 1969.
Given these structural realities, the prospects for a Chinese-Russian alliance in the longer
run are undoubtedly grim. But political leaders live in the here and now. Denied opportunities
in the West, what alternative do Russians have but to turn East? Moreover, while history deals
the hands, human beings play the cards, even sometimes practicing a quaint art known in earlier
eras as diplomacy. The confluence of China's strategic foresight and exquisite diplomacy, on
the one hand, and U.S. and Western European clumsiness, on the other, has produced an
increasingly thick and consequential alignment between two geopolitical rivals, Russia and
China.
In international relations, an elementary proposition states: "the enemy of my enemy is a
friend." The balance of power -- military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic -- between rivals
is critical. To the extent that China persuades Russia to sit on its side of the see-saw, this
adds to China's heft, a nuclear superpower alongside an economic superpower.
American presidents since Bill Clinton have not only neglected the formation of this
grievance coalition; unintentionally but undeniably, they have nurtured it. Russia emerged from
the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 with a leader eager to "bury Communism," as Boris
Yeltsin put it, and join the West. The story of how we reached the depth of enmity today is a
long one, strewn with mistakes by all parties. The Clinton administration's decision in 1996 to
expand NATO toward Russia's borders, Kennan observed, was the "most fateful error of American
policy in the entire post-cold-war era." He predicted that the consequence would be a Russia
that "would likely look elsewhere for guarantees of a secure and hopeful future for
themselves."
Vladimir Putin and Xi have watched the U.S.-led war in the Balkans (including the
"accidental" bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade in 1999), Western-supported "color
revolutions" topple governments in Georgia and then Ukraine, and even Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton encourage street protests in 2011 against Russia's parliamentary elections.
Putin would not have to suffer from paranoia to imagine that the United States was seeking to
overthrow him.
As U.S. pressure on Russia grew with sanctions after Russia's annexation of Crimea and a
diplomatic effort to "isolate" Russia, China opened its arms. At every point the United States
and Western Europeans imposed pain, China has offered comfort. Particularly when the United
States has attempted to "diss" Putin personally, Xi has found ways to demonstrate profound
respect. Consider what has actually happened in Sino-Russian relations along seven dimensions:
threat perceptions, relationship between leaders, official designation of the other, military
and intelligence cooperation, economic entanglement, diplomatic coordination and elites'
orientation.
WHEN RUSSIAN or Chinese national security leaders think about current threats, the specter
they see is the United States of America. They believe the United States is not only
challenging their interests in Eastern Europe or the South China Sea, but is actively seeking
to undermine their authoritarian regimes. Indeed, Putin and Xi reportedly compare notes about
the ways Washington is working to weaken each leader's control within his own society and even
topple him.
In contrast with Barack Obama's disdain towards Putin and Donald Trump's charge that China
is "raping America," Xi has persuaded Putin that they are "best buddies." To which capital did
Xi take his first trip after becoming president? Moscow. Which foreign leader gets to speak
immediately after Xi at every international meeting China hosts? Putin. As Putin noted earlier
this year, the only leader in the world with whom he had ever celebrated his birthday is Xi. In
awarding Putin China's "Medal of Friendship," Xi called the Russian president his "best, most
intimate friend."
Official U.S. national security documents designate Russia and China America's "strategic
competitors," "strategic adversaries" and even "enemies." Increasingly, they are discussed in
the same sentence, as if they were twins. According to the Trump National Security Strategy:
"China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode
American security and prosperity." Both are accused of conducting major "influence operations"
against the United States and interfering in U.S. elections.
By contrast, Chinese and Russian national security documents call their relationship a
"comprehensive strategic partnership." According to Xi, this is "the world's most important
bilateral relationship, and is the best relationship between large countries." China's
ambassador to Russia, Li Hui, says "China and Russia are together now like lips and teeth." The
words used by Russia's Foreign Ministry are "comprehensive, equal, and trust-based partnership
and strategic cooperation." Even alpha male Putin has found an artful way to recognize publicly
Russia's junior role in this partnership, saying "the main struggle, which is now underway, is
that for global leadership and we are not going to contest China on this."
Most American experts discount Sino-Russian military cooperation. Commenting on this year's
unprecedented military exercise in which 3,000 Chinese soldiers joined 300,000 Russians in
practicing scenarios for conflict with NATOin Eastern Europe, Secretary of Defense Mattis said:
"I see little in the long term that aligns Russia and China."
HE SHOULD look more carefully. What has emerged is what a former senior Russian national
security official described to me as a "functional military alliance." Russian and Chinese
generals' staffs now have candid, detailed discussions about the threat U.S. nuclear
modernization and missile defenses pose to each of their strategic deterrents. For decades, in
selling arms to China, Russia was careful to withhold its most advanced technologies. No
longer. In recent years it has not only sold China its most advanced air defense systems, the
S-400s, but has actively engaged with China in joint r&d on rockets engines -- and UAVs.
Joint military exercises by their navies in the Mediterranean Sea in 2015, the South China Sea
in 2016 and the Baltic Sea in 2017 compare favorably with U.S.-Indian military exercises. As a
Chinese colleague observed candidly, if the United States found itself in a conflict with China
in the South China Sea, what should it expect Putin might do in the Baltics?
In their diplomacy, Russia and China mirror the relationship between the two leaders. On
major international issues, they coordinate their positions. For example, when voting in the
United Nations Security Council, they agree 98 percent of the time. Russia has backed every
Chinese veto since 2007. The two have worked together to create and strengthen new
organizations to rival traditional American-led international organizations, including the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICs. For a Russian who wants to visit China, getting a
visa takes one day; to visit the United States it takes them three hundred days to obtain a
visa application interview.
Economically, Russia is slowly but surely pivoting east. China has displaced the United
States and Germany as Moscow's number one trading partner. Today, China is the top buyer of
Russian crude oil. A decade ago, all gas pipelines in Russia flowed west. With the completion
of the Power of Siberia pipeline in 2019, China will become the second largest market for
Russian gas, just behind Germany.
When U.S.-led Western sanctions excluded Russia from American-dominated dollar-denominated
markets, its relationship with China has allowed it to continue to buy and sell. In the current
U.S. push to prevent Iran selling oil to the world, Russia is trading goods for Iranian oil and
then selling it on to international markets, including China.
Meanwhile, Russian elites continue to look west. They are predominantly European in their
culture, history, religion and dreams. Wealthy Russians buy second (and third) homes in London,
New York and on the French Riviera. They speak English and travel to Paris, New York or London
to shop. Many have children who live in the West.
Cultural change is hard, and slow. But oligarchs who now find themselves the targets of
sanctions that prevent them doing business in the United States are exploring alternatives. And
some of Russia's leading thinkers are changing their tune. The Honorary Chairman of Russia's
Council on Foreign and Defense Policy Sergey Karaganov maintains that "the 'westernizer' today
is a thing of the past. Those looking forward to the future most show interest in the East."
Surveys this year show that 69 percent of Russians hold a negative view of the United States,
while the same percentage of Russians hold a positive view of China. When asked "who their
enemies are," two-thirds of Russians point to the United States, ranking it as Russia's
greatest foe. Only two percent of Russians view China as their enemy.
Grievance is a powerful motivator; respect can have a powerful magnetic pull. In Putin's
mind, the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century was the break-up of the
Soviet Union. Who was responsible for that break-up? In Xi's mind, China's "century of
humiliation" only ended once the Communist Party defeated the Nationalist Party in a bloody
civil war. Which country supported those nationalists, and continues to arm their island
fortress of Taiwan? Against the backdrop of this history, as we reflect on what the United
States is now doing, we should ask whether Brzezinski's warning about the "most dangerous
scenario" could soon become a fact.
Graham T. Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the Harvard Kennedy
School. He is the former director of Harvard's Belfer Center and the author of Destined
for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?
"The Clinton administration's decision in 1996 to expand NATO toward Russia's borders
was the "most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era." -- that
wasn't a mistake but a consequential policy.
The moves toward recruiting Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Moldovan, Armenian politicians and
military has begun in February 1992, literally months after the Soviet Union collapse.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict -- that's 1988 (continued well in the 1990s),
Moldovan-Transnistrian conflict -- that's 1992, The Georgia-Abkhazian War -- 1992, The
First Chechen War -- 1994, all backed up and financed by Washington. It's not a common
knowledge but the US invested 10 times more money to sever ties between Belarus and
Russia than it has to do the same with Ukraine, also began in 1992... It never was a
mistake.
The secret of Russian-Chinese good relations is because they no longer interfere into
each other's domestic politics, and ideology is no longer a factor between the two. The
two are actually back to the past of Westphalia time of national sovereignty, something
that the West has largely forgotten.
Except their good relations are only on the surface.
The Chinese are busy dismantling Russia's influence in Central Asia and taking it over
themselves. They are also pouring billions into Ukraine, Belarus and other former
satellites of Russia. Putin knows this of course, but there is nothing he can do about
it.
You are exaggerating. Russia will not subordinate to anyone. And China needs Russia as
an ally, not as a vassal. And China needs to integrate Eurasia by it's Belt project.
Russia is interested in integration too, so Russia will be valuable partner in this. In
fact, every Eurasian country interested in the integration, even Ukraine. But Ukraine is
governed by junta which acts against of interests of Ukraine.
Subordinate Russia is impossible, but to buy it's support not so difficult.
Russia invests in it's infrastructure itself. We develop North Sea Way, some railway
projects, build bridges. Others awaits China's credits. That's why part of OBOR in Russia
is small. We build infrastructure, it will work in OBOR, but we do it for ourselves for
our own money.
And I expect Russian ways will be preferable comparing to many others. But other routes
are also good. The more trade routes we have in Eurasia the less will be motivation to
fight with neighbors.
1) - there's no way Russia will trust US again.
2) - they seek trade , they also seek M.A.D. balance agreements , but not "pivot".
3) - the russkies , they'll offer NO vassalage to anyone , while US demands subjugation
from its colonies .
4) - US MIC (military industrial complex) demands a boogieman , therefore the'll NEVER
accept friendship with Russia.
You are mixing up USA and W.Europe with Russia. By the end of the century there won't
be any USA, and W.Europe will be more like a mix between Africa and Asia then Europe.
Siberia however, is more white christian homogeneous than USA ever was.
"The vast majority of the Siberian population (over 95%) is Slavic and other
Indo-European ethnicities,[2][3] mainly Russians, Ukrainians, and Germans. Most
non-Slavic groups are Turkic. Smaller linguistic groups are Mongols (ca. 600,000
speakers) Uralic (Samoyedic, Ugric; roughly 100,000 speakers), Manchu-Tungus (ca. 40,000
speakers), Chukotko-Kamchatkan (ca. 25,000 speakers), Eskimo–Aleut (some 2,000
speakers), the Yukaghir languages (highly endangered), and languages isolates Ket (but
see below) and Nivkh."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
It is time to stop speaking of a 'West' as a monolithic bloc! Increasingly, it is the
US alone and out of line with the rest of the 'West'. The countries of Europe, as well as
Canada, Australia and New Zealand aren't seeking hegemony over other countries,
overthrowing foreign governments, or use their currencies or economic systems as weapons
of war. The US is the only country practising imperialism! There is nothing wrong with
any of the Western countries except for the US. For example, Germany has good economic
ties with Russia and China, and they all respect each others' independence and
sovereignty. Yes, it is accepted that Western Europe is far more socially liberal than
Russia and China, and have different laws - but neight Russia nor China ever thought
Western Europe didn't have a right to set its own laws, like allowing gays to marry. It
is only the US that doesn't get the idea that countries are independent and sovereign.
They think they have a right to invade whoever they like, on whatever pretext, and even
export its laws to other nations! So the US is actually the only one posing a threat to
the rest of the world! Even the President of France has called for creating a European
Army that can defend itself from an American threat. Europe should in fact create its own
army, and act independently from the US in pursuit of Europe's actual economic interests!
And Russia and China will welcome it.
If the EU builds its own military without US involvement, the Russians will probably
offer to join as a 2-nd tier partner. Ditch NATO and they would sign a full partnership
agreement and a non-agression pact with mutual verifications.
Most leaders seek to isolate the stronger of their rivals by developing friendly
relations with the next strongest. The hubris of the US has led them to antagonize both
the second and third strongest.
In 1990's ,when USA proclaimed itself as a friend of Russia,they actually had a plan
on how to dissolve Russia in several indenpendent banana states.USA even had contact with
Chechen terrorists during bloody conflict in that region. USA in 2002 left ABM without
giving any explanation to Russia .Russia felt powerless and above all her national pride
was hurth but than God sent Putin and the rest is history.
Madeline Albright (the vile hag who spawned the war to hand Kosovo to a criminal
mafia) openly stated that Russia was "too big" and should be split into 3 independent
states to "better integrate into the global economy".... European Russia, Centreal
Siberia, and the Far East...
Yeah... can't imagine why Russians might think that the US speaks with forked tongue
and has nothing but bad intentions lined up for them.
For Russia the hate for USA is such that there is no way back.Years of humilition have
cemented Russian animosity towards USA .War and confrotations will decide who will write
the next chapter of history.
"War and confrotations will decide who will write the next chapter of history"
No, that can be avoided but it requires a mature foreign policy from Washington and a
willingness to usher in a new multi-polar world order with mutual respect between power
centers. I'm not at all confident that the US can deliver on that....
"War and confrotations will decide who will write the next chapter of history"
No, that can be avoided but it requires a mature foreign policy from Washington and a
willingness to usher in a new multi-polar world order with mutual respect between power
centers. I'm not at all confident that the US can deliver on that....
To say it straight, the USA is run by morons. That includes the media talking heads,
the editorial boards of the NYT, Washington Post, etc, most of the think tanks, most of
their politicians. These people are not intellectual giants, they tend to have bad
historical knowledge, bad general knowledge, very poor understanding of foreign nations
and their people, they get to their positions because of Americas increasing ideological
purity that is demanded from them. That being the case it is not a surprise that these
people can get it so completely wrong all the time.
Both Chinese and Russians are patriotic and tough peoples. They have had lived through
wars and sufferings, and could become reliable partnership, unlike Americans who are
unreliable and quite money-oriented. Nowadays Chinese and Russian elites, including
ordinary people are NO longer dreaming of the US/West. They have realized, in tough
times, they have become targets by the declining US-led west. The strategic synergy of
their complementary economies, human and natural resources seems invincible!
that yours mentioned one is/was #2 , but ... it is/was in no way worrisome ,
for being still under an effective , tight NATO leash .
( By the way , for centuries till now , for Britain that still IS rule #1).
Nevertheless Trump is now rising it to #1 while throwing them two into each other's
arms.
Strong contribution gave Obama too , when refused to stop NSA's wiretapping on
Jurmons.
Not even close, my friend! The only kowtowing is towards the US. It's the country that
demands other people have to follow its political and economic systems, and obey its laws
overseas. Look at its use of secondary sanctions and kidnapping executives of foreign
companies to coerce independent countries to tow the US line. China doesn't do any of
this. In fact, in the history of Sino-Russian relations, Russia has mostly had the upper
hand. China and Russia see each other as equals. One is an economic superpower, the other
is a nuclear superpower. They have economic interests that fit together nicely. Above
all, both Russia and China believe in multipolarity, independence, and respect for each
others' sovereignty. Neither Russia nor China are interested in kowtowing to the US.
The west under USA puppet-ship does no make friends, it makes vassals. Russia tried it
in the 1990s. Wont do that again. If the west wanted to be friends with Russia, Russia
would gladly accept.
the West seeks no friends , but rather vassals are welcome.
scores of worldwide diplomats have their backstage sayings :
- " it's better to be US' foe than ally ;
because if you are their foe , they'll try to buy you ;
but if you are their ally , they will sell you.".
Who from Russian elite look west? Can you tell names? Who in Russian elite speak English
except for Minister of foreign affair? Putin doesn't speak English. Some rich Russians have
houses in foreign countries though it is 6th or 7th houses after few houses in Russia. If you
speak about modern European culture than it has nothing similar with Russian culture. I have
seen that Americans don't know Russia at all again.
Not really. Google up the eternal 'zapadniki' vs 'slavophiles' split among Russian
cultural elites. This argument is about 2 centuries old, if you start counting from Pushkin
times - i.e. early 1800's. It never gets resolved, but the 'zapadniki' which is loosely
translated as 'western oriented' always have been a minority. And with China's geopolitical
star rising as quickly as it is, I see no reason for our 'zapadniki' not to become
'vostochniki'.
Yes, if african albinois owned media, had access to billions upon billions of dollars and
the full support of the entire NATO propaganda apparatus and used to rule Russia with an iron
fist driving it into the mud.
Pro-western parties have no 5% supporting for being in Russian parliament. Moreover they
have no 3%. Russian media regularly show western russophobs. Then more disgusting their lie
about Russia in western media than less Russians like west. They can spend any money while
westerners lie about Russia, Russian atlantists are like albinos.
I had an account in a Russian bank (MosOblBank). The owner of the bank ran to UK with
money of depositors. He has announced that he was under political pressure and UK don't give
him to Russia though he is a just thief. I returned my money because it was insured by the
government. What could I and few dozen of thousands depositors think about UK after it? A guy
like this one is not Russian elite. It is Russian garbage. Majority of Russians consider that
Russians living in London are thieves or LGBT.
Look at the Russian bots here? Do they actually think they can change anyone's opinions
about their backwater country run by an egotistical authoritarian?
the West seeks no friends , but rather vassals are welcome.
Scores of worldwide diplomats have their backstage sayings : " it's better to be US' foe than ally
because if you are their foe, they'll try to buy you ;
but if you are their ally , they will sell you.".
"... "Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much" ..."
"... Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses. ..."
"... Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time." ..."
Then-Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-KS, speaking at a rally in 2013. He faces a senate grilling for
his secretary of state nomination today.
Mark Taylor/Creative Commons Nahal Toosi reports
on an upcoming Pompeo speech planned for his visit to Egypt next month:
Pompeo's speech will likely focus heavily on Iran, as have many of his past public
remarks. The chief U.S. diplomat is likely to try to rally Arab capitals to stand with the
United States and thwart Iran's use of proxy forces, support for terrorism and other
activities in the region.
The Trump administration has made a regular habit of denouncing Iran in speeches by top
officials, and the administration's Iran policy has no more international support today than it
did a year ago. It's not clear what purpose another high-profile Iran-bashing session serves.
The administration's talking points are tediously familiar by now, and Pompeo's brusque and
overbearing manner is the opposite of persuasive.
Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't
required to do very much, and every attempt to get these clients to do more has so far produced
no results. The administration's ill-conceived, so-called Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA)
has stalled, thanks to the broader anti-Saudi backlash in Washington and the lack of interest
on the part of many of its would-be members. The administration's Iran policy of regime change
in all but name isn't working as planned and isn't going to work, and there is not much else
for Pompeo to talk about that reflects well on the administration. He and the president have
gone out of their way to thwart Congressional opposition to the war on Yemen, and they have
bent over backwards to make excuses for Saudi crimes.
Pompeo won't admit it in his speech, but the current U.S. role in the region is a
destabilizing one that involves aiding and abetting war crimes and helping to cause mass
starvation.
"Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they
aren't required to do very much"
Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses.
Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep
Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just
don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us
to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid
request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time."
"... You want to know what those casualty numbers tell us? American forces in Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq aren't going outside the wire – off American bases – very often. That's how you stay alive in places like Syria and Afghanistan. You stay away from places where things like IEDs can kill you. And even then, in the comparative safety of American bases, you're not safe, because there are enemy soldiers posing as "friendly" Afghan soldiers who will kill you. ..."
"... This is the nature of the conflicts we're engaged in. You take thousands of American soldiers and send them thousands of miles away from home into combat zones in foreign lands, and you have them do as little as possible so not too many of them get killed. ..."
"... It pains me to say this, but Trump pulling 2,000 soldiers out of Syria and 7,000 soldiers out of Afghanistan is the right thing to do. It might be getting done by a certifiable loon with an orange muskrat on his head, but it's the right thing to do and it should have been done a long time ago. ..."
The arm-waving and hand-flapping and pearl-clutching in the foreign affairs and national
security "communities," not to mention in the Congress and among prominent Democrats, is
something to behold. Significant portions of all those communities have long thought we didn't
have any business being in Syria in the first place. Not to mention fighting our 17th year of
the so-called "war" in Afghanistan, from which Trump intends to remove some 7,000 American
troops...
More than 2,400 American soldiers dead in Afghanistan so far. More than 30,000
Afghan civilians killed. Sixty percent of Afghan districts under control of the Taliban. Opium
production at an "all-time high." Dozens, sometimes hundreds of Afghan soldiers killed every
single week. You thought Vietnam was a misbegotten military misadventure? How about 17 years in
Afghanistan with no end in sight? Hell, opium production was said to be at an "all-time high"
when I was in the Kunar River Valley in Afghanistan in 2004. That's 14 years ago, 14 years
of record-setting opium crops!
And what are the pundits saying about our military foray into the morass called Syria?
Listen to what I heard from one "expert" on MSNBC yesterday.
"Syria is a very winnable proposition," this numbskull said, looking gravely at the other
"experts" at the table. "The U.S. presence is actually very small numbers." Two thousand is the
"very small number" this blazer-and-tie wearing "expert" was talking about as he reached for
his "I'm a Pundit on the Katy Tur Show" cup and went on to blather about how "winnable" Syria
is.
Let me tell you what 2,000 soldiers is. It's about the size of a brigade, commanded by a
full colonel. A brigade is typically three to five battalions of 500 to 1,000 soldiers,
commanded by lieutenant colonels. Battalions are made up of three to five companies with around
200 soldiers, commanded by captains. Companies comprise three to four platoons of 40 to 100
soldiers, commanded by second lieutenants. So 2,000 soldiers is about 30 to 40 platoons of
soldiers. I used to command a platoon. I was 22 years old. There were about 40 soldiers in my
platoon. Let me tell you, taking care of 40 soldiers was a big fucking job, and we weren't even
in combat.
Taking care of 2,000 soldiers in a place like Syria with bullets flying and IEDs going off
is a huge fucking job. Taking care of 14,000 soldiers, like we currently have in Afghanistan,
or 7,000 which we'll have when Trump gets finished with his draw-down, is a massive fucking
job.
... ... ...
And now Trump's Last General's feelings are all hurt, because he wasn't consulted about
pulling 2,000 troops out of Syria or 7,000 troops out of Afghanistan. What were those troops
doing in Syria? We don't know, and I don't think Mattis had much of an idea what they were
doing, either.
We can get some idea what they're doing by the number of casualties American forces have
suffered in both places. An American soldier was killed in Manbij, Syria, by a roadside bomb in
March of this year. He was the fourth American killed in Syria since our forces entered the
country in 2014. There have been 18 Americans killed in Afghanistan this year. Eleven were
killed there last year. About half of those killed in Afghanistan have been so-called
"green-on-green" killings, incidents where "friendly" Afghans killed American soldiers, usually
on American bases.
You want to know what those casualty numbers tell us? American forces in Syria,
Afghanistan, or Iraq aren't going outside the wire – off American bases – very
often. That's how you stay alive in places like Syria and Afghanistan. You stay away from
places where things like IEDs can kill you. And even then, in the comparative safety of
American bases, you're not safe, because there are enemy soldiers posing as "friendly" Afghan
soldiers who will kill you.
This is the nature of the conflicts we're engaged in. You take thousands of American
soldiers and send them thousands of miles away from home into combat zones in foreign lands,
and you have them do as little as possible so not too many of them get killed.
It pains me to say this, but Trump pulling 2,000 soldiers out of Syria and 7,000
soldiers out of Afghanistan is the right thing to do. It might be getting done by a certifiable
loon with an orange muskrat on his head, but it's the right thing to do and it should have been
done a long time ago.
Advertisement:
All the talk you're hearing about how we've got to have American forces in this desert or
that mountainous no-man's land as a "counterbalance" to countries like Russia and Iran is
lip-flapping twaddle from the kind of "experts" who got us involved in Iraq, Syria, and
Afghanistan in the first place. They are the same "experts" you didn't hear a peep from when
Mattis stood loyally by Trump as he virtually capitulated to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki,
trashed NATO every chance he got, and sat down for Nuclear Kimchi with Kim Jong Un. Now Mattis
is all "maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies" in his resignation
letter. Talk about a day late and a dollar short, he should call Angela Merkel and ask her how
much "respect" she's felt from the United States lately.
You want to know who can stop the resident of the adult day care center in the White House?
It wasn't Adult in the Room General McMaster. It wasn't Adult in the Room General Kelly. It
wasn't Adult in the Room General Mattis. And it's sure as hell not going to be somebody like
Secretary of Defense Kushner, or whoever the hell Trump decides he's going to sentence to a
padded cell on the E-Ring in the Pentagon next.
Trump can be stopped by Congress. The Congress can cut the funding for our misbegotten
misadventures in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. It can refuse to fund the laughable wall along
our 1,900 mile border with Mexico that Trump apparently thinks 6,000 soldiers can guard in the
meantime. And Congress can impeach and convict Trump's insane clown ass for conspiring with a
foreign nation to defraud the United States of America. Congress can do all of this if
Republicans will stop bowing down before the Orange Hair Helmet and start looking out for the
United States of America.
Just between you and me, we'll wake up tomorrow morning, and even with The Last Adult in the
Room on his way out the door, the Western World will still be here, and so will Trump. Trust
me.
Lucian K. Truscott IV
Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist,
novelist and screenwriter. He has covered stories such as Watergate, the Stonewall riots and
wars in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels and
several unsuccessful motion pictures. He has three children, lives on the East End of Long
Island and spends his time Worrying About the State of Our Nation and madly scribbling in a
so-far fruitless attempt to Make Things Better. He can be followed on Facebook at The Rabbit
Hole and on Twitter @LucianKTruscott.
President Donald Trump is planning on using his executive powers to cut food stamps for more
than 700,000 Americans.
The United States Department of Agriculture is proposing that states should only be allowed
to waive a current food stamps requirement -- namely, that adults without dependents must work
or participate in a job-training program for at least 20 hours each week if they wish to
collect food stamps for more than three months in a three-year period -- on the condition that
those adults live in areas where unemployment is above 7 percent,
according to The Washington Post . Currently the USDA regulations permit states to waive
that requirement if an adult lives in an area where the unemployment rate is at least 20
percent greater than the national rate. In effect, this means that roughly 755,000 Americans
would potentially lose their waivers that permit them to receive food stamps.
The current unemployment rate is 3.7 percent.
The Trump administration's decision to impose the stricter food stamp requirements through
executive action constitutes an end-run around the legislative process. Although Trump is
expected to sign an $870 billion farm bill later this week -- and because food stamps goes
through the Agriculture Department, it contains food stamp provisions -- the measure does not
include House stipulations restricting the waiver program and imposing new requirements on
parents with children between the ages of six and 12. The Senate version ultimately removed
those provisions, meaning that the version being signed into law does not impose a conservative
policy on food stamps, which right-wing members of Congress were hoping for.
"Congress writes laws, and the administration is required to write rules based on the law,"
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told The New York Times (Stabenow is the top Democrat on the
Senate's agriculture committee). "Administrative changes should not be driven by ideology. I do
not support unilateral and unjustified changes that would take food away from families."
Matthew Rozsa is a breaking news writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from
Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His
work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.
"... In his just published book, War With Russia? ..."
"... To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition." ..."
"... Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared. ..."
"... The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned. ..."
Throughout the long Cold War Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University was a
voice of reason. He refused to allow his patriotism to blind him to Washington's contribution to the conflict and to criticize only
the Soviet contribution. Cohen's interest was not to blame the enemy but to work toward a mutual understanding that would remove
the threat of nuclear war. Although a Democrat and left-leaning, Cohen would have been at home in the Reagan administration, as Reagan's
first priority was to end the Cold War. I know this because I was part of the effort. Pat Buchanan will tell you the same thing.
In 1974 a notorious cold warrior, Albert Wohlstetter, absurdly accused the CIA of underestimating the Soviet threat. As the CIA
had every incentive for reasons of budget and power to overestimate the Soviet threat, and today the "Russian threat," Wohlstetter's
accusation made no sense on its face. However he succeeded in stirring up enough concern that CIA director George H.W. Bush, later
Vice President and President, agreed to a Team B to investigate the CIA's assessment, headed by the Russiaphobic Harvard professor
Richard Pipes. Team B concluded that the Soviets thought they could win a nuclear war and were building the forces with which to
attack the US.
The report was mainly nonsense, and it must have have troubled Stephen Cohen to experience the setback to negotiations that Team
B caused.
Today Cohen is stressed that it is the United States that thinks it can win a nuclear war. Washington speaks openly of using "low
yield" nuclear weapons, and intentionally forecloses any peace negotiations with Russia with a propaganda campaign against Russia
of demonization, vilification, and transparent lies, while installing missile bases on Russia's borders and while talking of incorporating
former parts of Russia into NATO. In his just published book, War With Russia? , which I highly recommend, Cohen makes a
convincing case that Washington is asking for war.
I agree with Cohen that if Russia is a threat it is only because the US is threatening Russia. The stupidity of the policy toward
Russia is creating a Russian threat. Putin keeps emphasizing this. To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring
us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless
repetition."
Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the
Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of
cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared.
The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media
and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media
to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful
use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo
Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned.
The demonization of Russia is also aided and abetted by the Democrats' hatred of Trump and anger from Hillary's loss of the presidential
election to the "Trump deplorables." The Democrats purport to believe that Trump was installed by Putin's interference in the presidential
election. This false belief is emotionally important to Democrats, and they can't let go of it.
Although Cohen as a professor at Princeton and NYU never lacked research opportunities, in the US Russian studies, strategic studies,
and the like are funded by the military/security complex whose agenda Cohen's scholarship does not serve. At the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, where I held an independently financed chair for a dozen years, most of my colleagues were dependent on
grants from the military/security complex. At the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where I was a Senior Fellow for three
decades, the anti-Soviet stance of the Institution reflected the agenda of those who funded the institution.
I am not saying that my colleagues were whores on a payroll. I am saying that the people who got the appointments were people
who were inclined to see the Soviet Union the way the military/security complex thought it should be seen.
As Stephen Cohen is aware, in the original Cold War there was some balance as all explanations were not controlled. There were
independent scholars who could point out that the Soviets, decimated by World War 2, had an interest in peace, and that accommodation
could be achieved, thus avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.
Stephen Cohen must have been in the younger ranks of those sensible people, as he and President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet
Union, Jack Matloff, seem to be the remaining voices of expert reason on the American scene.
If you care to understand the dire threat under which you live, a threat that only a few people, such as Stephen Cohen, are trying
to lift, read his book.
If you want to understand the dire threat that a bought-and-paid-for American media poses to your existence, read Cohen's accounts
of their despicable lies. America has a media that is synonymous with lies.
If you want to understand how corrupt American universities are as organizations on the take for money, organizations to whom
truth is inconsequential, read Cohen's book.
If you want to understand why you could be dead before Global Warming can get you, read Cohen's book.
The recent veneration of George H.W. Bush has been wonderfully uplifting, especially as it
recalled his cautious use of persuasion and honest argument.
Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's former speechwriter, beautifully described Bush's funeral in
the Wall Street Journal as reminding us of our dignity and "re-summoning our mystique."
The event, Noonan said, harkened back to when America was respected and admired, generous and
"expected to do good." President Bush, she noted, had presided over the collapse of the Soviet
Union diplomatically and without humiliating Russia's leaders or its people. He also declined
to occupy a Muslim country after defeating Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Bush was indeed a very
decent man. In fact, he was a
great statesman, as TAC 's editor Jim Antle has noted on these pages.
Yet almost none of the news reported on what was the darkest chapter of his legacy: the
First Gulf War. I was a co-founder at the time of a small and vastly outgunned opposition group
of conservatives and (mainly) libertarians, the Committee to Avert a Mid-East Holocaust
. Today, with at least a million Arabs, Afghans, and Americans dead from the unending chaos the
United States unleashed in the Muslim world, the name seems very appropriate.
Our group included truly great conservatives: Henry Regnery, almost the only publisher of
conservative books, who helped keep liberty alive during the dark days of the 1940s and '50s,
along with the always brave Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran. Regnery and Buchanan were the main
contributors to our group. But we were a virtual who's who of the incipient libertarian
movement: Ron Paul, the once and future Texas congressman who would eventually gain a wider
following as a presidential candidate; Lew Rockwell, his former congressional staffer; the
economist Murray Rothbard; Bill Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute; Sheldon Richman,
longtime editor at FEE ; Justin Raimondo, who
would go on to be a co-founder at Antiwar.com ; and Burt Blumert, who helped fund much of Rothbard and
Raimondo's work.
Our chair and guide was
Phil Nicolaides , former deputy director at Voice of America during the Reagan era. The
executive committee included myself, Richman, Sobran, and chess champion Phil Collier. Fran
Griffin, a strong Catholic and founding member of Young Americans for Freedom, did tremendous
work for almost no pay handling our mail-outs and administration with her company Griffin
Communications.
In those days, communication consisted of direct mail, while most of the media just accepted
pro-war government handouts. If only we'd the internet! We did get some news coverage but of
course we were no match for Kuwaiti money and evangelical supporters of Israel. Still, the
Senate vote in favor of the war was only 52-47, despite the overwhelming propaganda in favor of
it as described below.
The war led to a major break between
libertarians and conservatives , especially as the giant Heritage Foundation became a
champion of war from that moment on. Even today, Heritage has backed continued U.S. support for
the Saudi bombing of Yemen.
Much about the Gulf War and especially its lies and subsequent brutality were not reported.
Bush himself may not have known all that took place in the military campaign. After all, Dick
Cheney, whom we know now to be a liar, was his secretary of defense. But the deeds need to be
remembered and indeed researched.
Particularly odious was the calculated destruction of Iraq's sanitation, irrigation, and
electrical grid, with the intent of causing
mass civilian disease and starvation, as specified in a Defense
Intelligence Agency report. It would have been interesting to find out who ordered this
policy. Reconstruction supplies were then blockaded over the following nine years, including
during the Clinton presidency. The consequent half million deaths of children were deemed
acceptable by Clinton's former secretary of state Madeleine Albright in this famous 60 Minutes
interview with Leslie Stahl. Osama bin Laden later listed civilian suffering in Iraq as one
of the three reasons for his subsequent terrorist attack on America.
Public support for the war was in part ginned up by the infamous "incubator babies" lie and
claims that aerial photographs showed 200,000 Iraqi soldiers waiting along the border to invade
Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the reason given to Americans for sending troops was to protect the
Saudis.
The Christian Science Monitor and LA Times reported later
how it was untrue and that such photographs never existed. Photos of the border showed no
troops congregated there. The Defense Department claimed the photos were secret and never
released them even after the war.
Such
misinformation is critical if you're trying to get America into a war. Remember the British propaganda
that got us into the First World War? A repeated story was that German soldiers were eating
Belgian babies. In the second Iraq war, it was lies that Saddam had aided bin Laden and was
developing nuclear "weapons of mass destruction."
Kuwait's ruling family spent billions of dollars and paid for top public relations in
Washington. I remember particularly the yearly CPAC meeting when the Kuwaitis paid for a dozen
tables to be filled with students to cheer for war. Saddam was sending cash bequests to the
families of Palestinian terrorists whom Israel had killed, so pro-Israel forces in Washington
also supported the war, though they were less important to the lobbying effort than Kuwait.
Nevertheless, the United States initially hesitated to go to war. There was the meeting of
the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, with Saddam Hussein during which she told him that
inter-Arab quarrels were
not the concern of the United States government . A top State Department official told
Congress the same thing. The ambassador strangely disappeared from the news after the war
started.
Then there was President Bush's rather casual attitude about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Only
after he met with British Prime Minister Thatcher and faced the vast pro-war publicity campaign
did he change his mind. Thatcher was very alarmed because Kuwait's vast deposits in British
banks were important for their solvency. She feared Iraq might continue threatening other Gulf
states and their bank deposits. She insisted and begged America to save Kuwait. Bush than
organized a United Nations Security Council vote to condemn Iraq and a coalition that included
many Arab nations. He did it with full international legality (unlike his son's subsequent war)
and above all he got our allies to pay for the war. There was massive support in America for
the operation.
Bush's national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, later opposed the younger Bush's attack
on and subsequent occupation of Iraq in 2003. He understood well the limits of power and the
importance of having allies -- something the next President Bush cared little about.
Actually, George H. W. Bush only looks good next to the Current Occupant (of the Oval
Office).
I, too, can remember his Presidency, and even his candidacy, when he authorized the use of
those Willie Horton ads. (Which contributed both to the rise of the alt-right and the BLM
movements.)
I recall his first candidacy,k when he was opposed to "voodoo economics" before he was all
for it.
One need not lay out any secret cabal when he was in office as indicative of his
character. It was on full display long before. And it had nothing to do with a "kinder,
gentler America", only with the pursuit of power at any cost to integrity or honor.
Look there are valid reasons to challenger the first gulf war. It was strictly a debate
between Iraq and Kuwait. Historical issues and the matter of supplemental dollars for what
Iraq believed was a defense against the Iranian revolution.
But unlike the last invasion the First Gulf effort was largely supported even by Gulf
States. Stop dreaming up libertarian fantasies about Sen rand Paul. Libertarian anti-war
effort. As for PM thatcher's fears – the Iraqi invasion did not budge the price of oil.
This was a dispute between two neighbors and nothing more.
But it was the international effort that made the case. And it was not just Israel. It was
limited to one goal,pushing Iraqi troops back into Iraq proper.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
The valid critiques on Pres. Bush, Sr. are those in the above comments about economics and
"Willie Horton."
The case against iraq in the second effort was very clear.
Iraq had invaded no one
Had nothing to do with 9/11
No evidence the wmd in any viable state
No evidence that the weapons inspectors were not accomplishing their mission.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
I didn't hear a peep from the likes of your clique about challenging the war in
Afghanistan. That was an effort that would have demonstrated some serious unnecessary
anti-war thinking. Some intellectual work in examining the issues and the consequence. The
internet was alive and well during the Afghanistan advance --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
There is a difference between being anti-war and being opposed to unnecessary military
efforts. Libertarians trying to hide in the minutia of being anti-war as they savage their
fellow citizens with their immigration no borders nonsense, selling marijuana -- a tax boon
no where in sight in Colorado, Ca., or anywhere else, now want to unleash their carelessness
on heroin, cocaine, and hashish.
Bush talked about Dukakis's prison furloughs, and his campaign did produce and ad about them,
but the famous Willie Horton ad was produced by an independent PAC. It was done on Bush's
behalf, and Lee Atwater was all in favor of making Horton an issue, but so far as is known,
Bush didn't authorize or approve the well-known ad himself.
_________
I wonder if it would have been possible for antiwar conservatives (and conservatives
critical of trade and immigration policy) to mainstream their concerns. As it was, many
tended to become trapped in paleocon land, arguing forever that they were further to the
right than the others, and embracing some embarrassing ideas and historical icons.
You may recall John O'Sullivan's law – any organization that isn't explicitly
expressly right-wing will become left-wing over time. But the corollary seems to be that
critical or unorthodox movements on the right tend to get boxed into being "more conservative
than thou" and losing access to the centrist mainstream.
Whatever the current orthodoxy is appropriates the conservative label, and dissenters
either move to left or the far right.
Conservatives and liberals both have a great diversity of opinion, but it seems like
politics today are so polarized and binary that it's impossible for those of divergent
opinions to be on the same side or at more or less the same place on the political
spectrum.
One side is always going to be accused of being sell-outs to the enemy or of being on the
lunatic fringe.
I'm inclined to make a distinction between the "jus ad bellum" and the "jus in bello" aspects
of the Gulf War. I think I can say that I lean heavily anti-war in general, but I do think
the Gulf War was justified. Even if it's true that America and others wouldn't have
intervened in a case where the countries involved were small and unimportant, I don't think
the answer would be to also refuse to intervene in the case at hand. There's a great value in
upholding the principle that countries can't forcibly annex land from each other. Also, it's
hard to believe that Saddam Hussein would have settled down and minded his own business. It's
more likely that the lack of pushback from his Kuwait invasion would have encouraged further
adventurism.
None of that is to defend the way the war was actually conducted. It's just to suggest
that the preferable alternative would have been to wage the war more ethically rather than
not to wage it at all.
ElitCommInc appears to have a requisite necessity to interject "Sen rand Paul" into articles
that don't even mention him. C'est la vie.
As regards Afghanistan, I confess to having not a clue what is meant by " some serious
unnecessary anti-war thinking" but as I remember those days, while there was general support
for getting Bin Laden there were voices in the libertarian/paleoconservative movement that
argued for a special forces operation, a quit hit and not a full out occupation force.
Marijuana legalization has nothing to do with the article though I suppose those awful
libertarians also "savage" their fellow citizens with the sale of adult beverages as well.
C'est la vie.
I reluctantly got on board with the first Gulf War and about all that can be said that's
positive is that Bush Sr. at least endorsed a limited objective i.e. get Iraq out of Kuwait.
Not so that brain-dead son of his who was taking his orders from his VP.
The Great War Christmas Truce: 'They Were
Positively Human'For a brief moment in 1914, the guns went silent and the men risked
court martial to play soccer, smoke and sing---with the other side. By Hunter DeRensis
•
December 21, 2018
Wikimedia Commons/public domain A 19th-century peace activist once asked, "Is it possible
that any Christian, of whatever sect, who believes the New Testament to be anything better than
a fable, can doubt for a moment that the time will come when all the kingdoms of the earth
shall be at peace?"
Jesus Christ, as both a religious and historical figure, has been chronicled as the "Prince
of Peace." He was the man (or son of God) who instructed his followers to turn the other cheek.
This philosophy of love, forgiveness, and the rejection of violence is difficult to mesh with a
modern age that has fought two world wars. Reaching even farther back, it's hard to reconcile
Christ's message with the violence inflicted by Christians against both non-Christians and
other members of the faith.
But one moment, found in the bloody, secularized 20th century, stands out: the Christmas
Truce of 1914.
World War I had begun in August, engulfing most of Europe. On the western front, a German
invasion of France by way of Belgium had stalled just 50 miles outside of Paris. Fighting
quickly devolved into trench warfare, with German and British-French lines divided by a
no-man's land of barbed wire, shell holes, and death. Soldiers lived and died in trenches of
mud and dirt, infested with fleas and other vermin and often flooded with water that was knee
deep. Winter added frost and bitter cold. The war that people on both sides said would be done
by Christmas showed no sign of ending. By December, after barely five months of combat,
casualties on all sides numbered over two million.
Yet that Christmas Eve, an unexpected sound could be heard above the din of gunfire:
soldiers on the German side singing Stille Nacht , the original German-language
Silent Night . Small fir trees, makeshift replacements for the grand Christmas trees
back home, had been placed. The constant fighting might have had the effect of increasing
religious reflection. During the opening months of the war in 1914, churches in Germany were
fuller than they had ever been, even in working-class areas infamous for secular and
anti-clerical politics.
After much hesitation, soldiers on the British side began to poke their heads out of the
trenches. The Germans did not fire. The Brits responded by applauding and singing their own
English version of the carol. The two sides then met together in no man's land. Frederick James
Davies, a private in the 2nd Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers,
described his experiences in a letter home to his mother: "They [the Germans] were only
fifty yards away from us in the trenches. They came out and we went to meet them. We shook
hands with them . They also gave us cigars but they didn't have much food. I think they are
hard up for it. They were fed up with the war." They exchanged "cigs, jam and corn beef" and
Davies added that he had "a good chat with the Germans on Xmas day."
Writer Henry Williamson, then a private in the London Rifle Brigade,
wrote cheerfully home to his mother that he was smoking German tobacco he had exchanged
with a live soldier. He recounted, "Yesterday the British & Germans met & shook hands
in the Ground between the trenches, & exchanged souvenirs, & shook hands." He describes
his military counterparts: "Many are gentle looking men in goatee beards & spectacles, and
some are very big and arrogant looking." In other words, they looked positively human.
Williamson even showed empathy for their similar motivations: "The Germans put 'For Fatherland
& Freedom' on the cross. They obviously think their cause is a just one."
In his own account, Captain A.D. Chater of the 2nd Battalion Gordon Highlanders
wrote : "This extraordinary truce has been quite impromptu. There was no previous
arrangement and of course it had been decided that there was not to be any cessation of
hostilities."
This outbreak of peace was entirely spontaneous, started by privates on the front lines as
their officers threatened them with court-martial. Soldiers laughed, talked, sang, exchanged
gifts, and helped to bury their dead. A few games of soccer were even played.
They had been killing each other for months, indoctrinated for most of their lives to view
the "other" as evil, inhuman. But here they were, ordinary men who missed their homes and
families, who had only the vaguest idea of why they were there, why they were dying and
killing. Karl Muhlegg of the 17th Bavarian Regiment wrote home, "Never was I as keenly aware of
the insanity of war."
The truce continued until the end of Christmas. In some spots it continued for days. But
slowly men returned to their sides and fighting resumed. Europe would not see another Christmas
in peacetime until 1918, after 10,000,000 men had been killed. When the war ended, the French
military academy Saint-Cyr listed all its graduates who had fallen. For one year, it contains
just one brief but chilling entry: "The Class of 1914." In comparison, only 81 British soldiers
died on Christmas Day 1914 in all of Europe.
What is striking is the difference between the propaganda put forward by the governments on
the home front and the spontaneous actions that Christmas. Besides Pope Benedict XV, who urged
a temporary ceasefire so war cannons would not be booming across Europe on the night the angels
were meant to announce Christ's birth, what the soldiers did was opposed by governments on both
sides.
There's a case to be made that the truce had nothing to do with Christianity. Periodic and
unplanned truces occur in war regularly. Fighting ceases while the two sides take time to bury
their dead. And trade and fraternization do occur. One might ask, does the common soldier need
a higher reason to stop killing or be killed? But this rejoinder is far too simplistic. It's
estimated that roughly 100,000 soldiers participated in the Christmas Truce of 1914 to some
degree. This is far too large a number to be written off as a casual occurrence. This event was
unplanned, uncoordinated, and not sanctioned by the officer core. Yet it happened. And it just
happened to take place on the most celebrated day in the Christian calendar, the observance of
the birth of Christ, the "Prince of Peace." If both sides were not united under Christendom,
joined together in mutual belief, it is a definite that the truce would not have occurred.
In November 1914, three months into the war, Pope Benedict XV grieved, "Who would imagine,
as we see them thus filled with hatred of one another, that they are all of one common stock,
all of the same nature, all members of the same human society? Who would recognize brothers,
whose Father is in Heaven?" Perhaps on Christmas, with morals engraved on their innermost
hearts, the soldiers realized the truth of this statement.
As an event in the history of war, the Christmas Truce of 1914 is barely a footnote; it had
no major effects on the fighting or outcome of World War I. But in the history of peace, the
truce is a powerful story. This moment, this flash of love, bookended on both sides by
destruction and hate, was a triumph of humanity. It's the closest thing we'll see to a miracle
in this fallen world.
Frederick Niven, a minor Scottish poet, ended his poem "A Carol from Flanders" with a
sentiment that should be prayed for year-round:
O ye who read this truthful rime
From Flanders, kneel and say:
God Speed the time when every day
Shall be as Christmas Day
Hunter DeRensis is a regular contributor to. Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis .
"Leaders" don't care about the ordinary soldier–and it doesn't matter which countries
are fighting. "God Save The King (or Queen)" "Deutschland Ueber Alles" "Allons enfant de la
Patrie" "Make The World Safe For Democracy". Blah, blah, blah.
Could you imagine the singing of "Happy Holidays" igniting such an overwhelming burst of
love? Do the owners of our mainstream media outlets pay announcers a bonus for everytime they
squeeze "holiday" into their scripts? I am not taking a holiday and I find it offensive to
discount the happiest day of my religious belief system discounted such. BTW – The
officers had to force the troops back into the killing fields at gunpoint. Had the Christmas
Peace of 1914 held – just imagine? The secularization of Christmas is not a joining
phenomenon it is a divisive act. Those who launched this war on Christmas have had great
victories here. It is being stalled overseas in both supposedly Christian and non-Christian
countries. If we get into a really nasty war – just see how quickly these warmongers
will give us back Christam (temporarily).
"War made the State and the State makes War."
These poor men had barely more influence on policy than livestock do in managing a cattle
ranch.
It's ridiculous to say Christians fought Christians etc.
These wars were made by States which had amassed the power – through ideology and
technology – to control multitudes of helpless, defenceless people.
History can be summed up as: Man v State; Law v Power; Civilisation v Barbarism.
In the twentieth century, we saw the triumph of State Power over Law, Civilisation and
Humanity.
(The State surpassed disease as mankind's greatest affliction.)
The German invasion didn't stall by itself before Paris. The French fought like lions at the
First battle of the Marne (the British troops' contribution was numerically quite reduced at
that time) and prevailed over the Germans. Sadly with not enough of a decision on the war
that then went on Why is it always so difficult for American magazines (and newspapers) to
mention the French ? It always gives the silent impression French were hapless bystanders to
a war on their own soil.
" This family had a role in the assassination of JFK, 9/11, and other covert operations
failures that are nothing less than sinister... "Starting with Prescott Bush's business dealings
with the Nazi's, to George H. Bush's association with Lee Harvey Oswald, Saddam Hussein, and
others.... all the way to George W. Bush's dealings with Osama Bin Laden long before he became a
'Terrorist'."
This book reveals a system that is broken and deeply corrupt. The old adage is true "things
are not as they appear". Don't read this if you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit
this.
Notable quotes:
"... The same Crichton whose secret military intelligence unit counted dozens of men who simultaneously held jobs as Dallas police officers? ..."
I highly recommend this book. If anything Russ Baker goes very easy on the Bush Crime Family.
For example google "Chip Tatum Pegasus" and you will find he is not mentioned in this book.
Then there is the case of the 1980's Franklin pedophile ring and GHW Bush's associations with
pedophilic pimp Lawrence E. King. Again, that is a whopping Bush family "secret" and it is
not in this book.
However, Baker does lay out a pretty google circumstantial case that GHW Bush may very
well have been involved in the JFK assassination. May I quote Baker asking GHW Bush:
-Some years ago you claimed not to remember where you were on the morning of Nov. 22,
1963? Have you since been able to recall?
-Can you tell us about your decades-long friendship with George de Mohrenschildt, the man
who was in and out of Lee Harvey Oswald's house on almost a daily basis in the year before
the Kennedy assassination?
-Did you, as characterized in an FBI memo, work as a CIA officer in tandem with Cuban
exiles at the time of the Kennedy assassination?
-Why have you never spoken publicly about the documented call you made to the FBI on Nov
22, 1963, in which you identified yourself fully and claimed to have information on a
possible suspect in Kennedy's death? What was the purpose of that call, in which you
mentioned your whereabouts at the time of the call, 1:45pm, as Tyler, Texas, i.e. about 99
miles away but just a short flight on the private plane on which you were traveling? Why did
you tell the FBI that you were en route next to Dallas and would stay at the Sheraton there
when you had already been at the Sheraton the night before--and right after that call flew to
Dallas but only to switch planes and fly back immediately to Houston? Why were you giving the
FBI the impression you would be staying in Dallas the night after the assassination instead
of letting them know you had stayed there the night before the assassination?
-Why was your own assistant at the home of the man you would finger as a suspect in the
shooting, and why did he end up providing the man with an alibi? Was the ultimate purpose of
that call not to cause the alleged suspect any permanent harm, but merely to use the call as
an excuse to state in government files that you were in a place other than Dallas?
-Since you claimed not to remember where you were when Kennedy was killed, how is it that
after these FBI memos surfaced, your wife Barbara suddenly found and published an old letter
placing you and her in Tyler, Texas shortly after the shooting?
On the day of the assassination, were you in touch with your friend and Republican running
mate Jack Crichton, a military intelligence figure who was connected to figures forcing their
way into the pilot car of Kennedy's motorcade? The same Crichton who controlled the man who
served as the interpreter between Oswald's wife and police and reframed her words so as to
implicate Oswald in Kennedy's shooting? The same Crichton who was working out of a secret
underground communications bunker below the streets of Dallas?
The same Crichton whose secret
military intelligence unit counted dozens of men who simultaneously held jobs as Dallas
police officers? The same Crichton who did secret oil industry intelligence work in the
Middle East while you did intelligence related oil industry work via your company, Zapata
Offshore?
-Finally, do you know people who consider the events of November 22, 1963 to, in their
minds, "reflect the very best of the American spirit?" You say almost nothing, ever, about
the Kennedy assassination, even skipping over it in your own memoir, which details much more
trivial events of the same year. Why is that? And why then, in your eulogy for former
President Ford, a member of the increasingly-discredited Warren Commission, did you go out of
your way to oddly praise him for promoting the increasingly-discredited "single bullet
theory?" You said:
"After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford
and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And the conspiracy theorists
can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final
definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it and Jerry
Ford's word was always good."
Why did you, so bizarrely, smile when you uttered those words?
Now, with your Medal of Freedom, given you by a Democratic president who ran as an agent
of change, you truly seem to be enjoying the last laugh."
I've had this publication for several years. It's important to point out I've not read this
publication completely but rather I've used it for key search terms. If you don't have access
using this kind of information, you are way behind the curve on how this platform can be used
for research. It becomes even more vital in today's world of fake news reports as exampled by
what we being presented with today. These same electronic e'books can be read on the computer
too.
A few example on how you can cut and paste the vital info is presented below:
lone gunman is a much more comforting notion in our democracy than a vast apparatus that
can bring down presidents. Give us a simple explanation that easily encapsulates the horrible
and then we can retain forever all that we have held to be true. If there was any genius in
the Bush administration, it was the understanding that Americans did not want to confront
complexities and had a great need of "bad guys" to blame for what had gone wrong.
Baker, Russ. Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the
Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years . Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle Edition.
The Iraq War was not, and never had been, about an imminent threat to the safety of
America and its allies; even Republicans like former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan
were publicly acknowledging that it was mostly about oil.
Baker, Russ. Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the
Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years (p. 3). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle Edition.
The reason the Bushes are relevant today, even with W.' s exit from the national stage, is
that the family and its colleagues and associates represent an elite that has long succeeded
in subverting our democratic institutions to their own ends. And they will continue to do so
unless their agenda and methods are laid bare to public scrutiny.
Baker, Russ. Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the
Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years (p. 6). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle Edition.
George William Bush acknowledged under oath -- as part of a deposition in a lawsuit
brought by a nonprofit group seeking records on Bush's past -- that he was the junior officer
on a three-to four-man watch shift at CIA headquarters between September 1963 and February
1964, which was on duty when Kennedy was shot. 6 "I do not recognize the contents of the
memorandum as information furnished to me orally or otherwise during the time I was at the
CIA," he said. "In fact, during my time at the CIA, I did not receive any oral communications
from any government agency of any nature whatsoever. I did not receive any information
relating to the Kennedy assassination during my time at the CIA from the FBI. Based on the
above, it is my conclusion that I am not the Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence
Agency referred to in the memorandum."
Baker, Russ. Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the
Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years (p. 11). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle
Edition.
Devine's role in setting up Zapata would remain hidden for more than a decade -- until
1965. At that point, as Bush was extricating himself from business to devote his energies to
pursuing a congressional seat, Devine's name suddenly surfaced as a member of the board of
Bush's spin-off company, Zapata Offshore -- almost as if it was his function to keep the
operation running. To be sure, he and Bush remained joined at the hip. As indicated in the
1975 CIA memo, Bush and Devine enjoyed a "close relationship" that continued while Mr. Bush
was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations nine years later. In fact, Devine even accompanied
then-congressman Bush on a two-week junket to Vietnam, leaving the day after Christmas in
1967, a year before the Republicans would retake the White House. After being "out" of the
CIA since 1953, Devine's top-secret security clearance required an update, though what
top-secret business a freshman congressman on the Ways and Means Committee could have,
requiring two weeks in Vietnam with a "businessman," was not made clear.
Baker, Russ. Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the
Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years (pp. 13-14). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle
Edition.
There's more but I hope my review of this work and the value of it will be apparent.
I most strongly recommend this book for the research in the discovery of State Crimes
Against Democracy.
Probably a "must read". Tells how the Saudis for decades did dirty work the CIA didn't want
to do itself (including Iran Contra), and they did it with the coordination and assistance of
Poppy Bush and his companies. Describes "W" Bush as an incompetent who failed at numerous
jobs that Daddy got him, and never succeeded at anything (other than marrying Laura and
ending his alcohol addiction when she threatened to leave him) until he became Texas
governor. Goes into detail about "W"'s draft dodging, and desertion of the Air Force Reserve
without being court martialed.
From Samuel Bush late 19th century to Bush 43 the book reveals the double life of the Bush
family. The connections and associations throughout a century leave little doubt that the
Bush family is entwined in many of the most historical and tragic events of wars, politics
and covert activities of the USA. If you want to understand what was really happening and how
the American citizens have been betrayed and hoodwinked by the Bush's this is a great book.
WOW! The closest I can come t o describing this is to say it is a multi-level, generational
expose of "incestuous" relationships WITHOUT the sex! How can that be? Read it and learn. If
I'd known how pervasive and of such longstanding and widespread these relationships.... I
would've started with a 14' x 14' white board and diagrammed a kind of "family" tree and
still would have had to write small! - really small. Someone said: "What a tangled web we
weave when first we practice to deceive." This is like THE largest can of worms; it was hard
to keep track, but Russ Baker did and showed how each player was connected to the next -
sometimes it was linear and other times it went sideways, but always came back to the
beginning family of Bush. Oh my.
The tangential names and places are fully explained in this book. The reality of elite
dynasties (Bush, Rockefeller, Kennedy) is undeniable. These people affect our lives, often in
ways only they know about. Connections are inherited, my friends. To get your feet wet, visit
YouTube and watch one of the video interviews with author Russ Baker.
An outstanding read, chock-full of background info on this dynastic American family.
Not flattering to them, but the allegations are mostly substantiated.
There are some questionable flights of speculation, which taint the book's general
objectivity.
I was shocked to learn of the many ways in which the same prominent figures kept popping-up,
complicit in the huge events of the past several decades (the Kennedy assassination,
Watergate scandal, Nixon's downfall, etc.).
And Geo.H.W. Bush was the "Man Behind the Curtain", swirling in the murky background of every
story.
My perception of BOTH Bush presidents has been fundamentally altered.
Fascinating.
Besides being an expose of the Bush dynasty, Baker demonstrates the close ties between many
different groups that people tend to think of as being separate - Texas oilmen, military
intelligence, Wall Street, FBI, CIA, the arms industry, organized crime, etc. It's a big
revolving door, a huge network of the Old Boys Club. The elites of the world are interested
in power and wealth, not in ideology.
He offers a cautionary note about trusting declassified government documents:
"Allen Dulles once called CIA documents 'hieroglyphics.'...Dulles used to expound on such
elements of tradecraft to his fellow Warren Commission members. On one occasion, he told them
that no one would be able to grasp an intelligence memo except for those involved in its
creation and their colleagues...When Thomas J. Devine, Poppy Bush's business partner and a
former CIA agent, coyly suggested to me that the problem with journalists like myself is that
'you believe what you read in government documents,' he was referring to such deeply coded
disinformation."
A must read book by noted journalist Russ Baker that documents the inherently obvious
connections with the bush family and the CIA, oil billionaires, energy giants and many more
conflicts of interest, particularly with Ken Lay and Enron. This is a book that reveals the
true bush dynastry. For example, I was not aware of Prescott Bush's mentoring of Richard
Nixon and his close relationship to President Eisenhower and how Prescott got Ike to put the
young inexperienced Nixon on the 1952 presidential ticket. The entire sorid history of the
bush's going back to post WW One and their support of the Nazi's in washing money for the 2nd
World War. Allen Dulles figures prominantly in this terrific read. Don't be fooled by the
gentel George H W Bush. His connections to the CIA go back way farther than he admits, and he
figures prominantly in Iran Contra. George H W Bush is the only known individual who cannot
account for where he was during the Coup D'Etat in November 1963. The man is a liar and a
coward as well as a thief. Baker spends about 75 pages detailing George H W Bush's
involvement in Watergate and the downfall of the Nixon administration. Well written and
documented. This is a five star book and a must read for truth seekers. Stephen Courts
"... The aim of classical economics was to tax unearned income, not wages and profits. The tax burden was to fall on the landlord class first and foremost, then on monopolists and bankers. The result was to be a circular flow in which taxes would be paid mainly out of rent and other unearned income. The government would spend this revenue on infrastructure, schools and other productive investment to help make the economy more competitive. Socialism was seen as a program to create a more efficient capitalist economy along these lines. ..."
"... Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire ..."
"... Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... J Is for Junk Economics – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception ..."
"... J is for Junk Economics ..."
"... Guns and Butter ..."
"... J Is for Junk Economics ..."
"... The Fictitious Economy ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... J Is for Junk Economics – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception ..."
"... Killing the Host ..."
"... J is for Junk – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception ..."
=>
◄►◄ ❌
►▲▼ Remove from
Library B Show Comment Next New
Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to
recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information'
checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲▼ Search
Text Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
The aim of classical economics was to tax unearned income, not wages and profits. The
tax burden was to fall on the landlord class first and foremost, then on monopolists and
bankers. The result was to be a circular flow in which taxes would be paid mainly out of rent
and other unearned income. The government would spend this revenue on infrastructure, schools
and other productive investment to help make the economy more competitive. Socialism was seen
as a program to create a more efficient capitalist economy along these lines.
I'm Bonnie Faulkner. Today on Guns and Butter, Dr. Michael Hudson. Today's show: The
Vocabulary of Economic Deception. Dr. Hudson is a financial economist and historian. He is
President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, a Wall Street financial
analyst and distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas
City. His 1972 book Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire is a
critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies through the IMF and World Bank.
His latest books are, Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global
Economy and J Is for Junk Economics – A Guide to Reality in an Age of
Deception . Today we discuss J is for Junk Economics , an A to Z guide that
describes how the world economy really works, and who the winners and losers really are. We
cover contemporary terms that are misleading or poorly understood, as well as many important
concepts that have been abandoned – many on purpose – from the long history of
political economy.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Dr. Michael Hudson, welcome to Guns and Butter again.
MICHAEL HUDSON: It's good to be back, Bonnie.
BONNIE FAULKNER: You write that your recent book, J Is for Junk Economics , a
dictionary and accompanying essays,was drafted more than a decade ago for a book to have been
entitled The Fictitious Economy . You tried several times without success to find a
publisher. Why wouldn't publishers at the time take on your book?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Most publishers like to commission books that are like the last one that
sold well. Ten years ago, people wanted to read about how the economy was doing just fine. I
was called Dr. Doom, which did very well for me in the 1970s when I was talking about the
economy running into debt. But they wanted upbeat books. If I were to talk about how the
economy is polarizing and getting poorer, they wanted me to explain how readers could make a
million dollars off people getting more strapped as the economy polarizes. I didn't want to
write a book about how to get rich by riding the neoliberal wave dismantling of the economy. I
wanted to create an alternative.
If I wanted to ride the wave of getting rich by taking on more debt, I would have stayed on
Wall Street. I wanted to explain how the way in which the economy seemed to be getting richer
was actually impoverishing it. We are in a new Gilded Age masked by a vocabulary used by the
media via television and papers like The New York Times that are euphemizing what was
happening.
A euphemism is a rhetorical trick to make a bad phenomenon look good. If a landlord gets
rich by gentrifying a neighborhood by exploiting tenants and forcing them out, that's called
wealth creation if property values and rents rise. If you can distract people to celebrate
wealth and splendor at the top of the economic pyramid, people will be less focused on how the
economy is functioning for the bottom 99%.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Can you describe the format of J Is for Junk Economics – A Guide
to Reality in an Age of Deception as an A-to-Z dictionary with additional essays? It seems
to me that this format makes a good reference book that can be picked up and read at any
point.
MICHAEL HUDSON: That's what I intended. I wrote it as a companion volume to my outline of
economic theory, Killing the Host , which was about how the financial sector has taken
over the economy in a parasitic way. I saw the vocabulary problem and also how to solve it: If
people have a clear set of economic concepts, basically those of classical economics –
value, price and rent – the words almost automatically organize themselves into a
worldview. A realistic vocabulary and understanding of what words mean will enable its users to
put them together to form an inter-connected system.
I wanted to show how junk economics uses euphemisms and what Orwell called Doublethink to
confuse people about how the economy works. I also wanted to show that what's called think
tanks are really lobbying institutions to do the same thing that advertisers for toothpaste
companies and consumer product companies do: They try to portray their product – in this
case, neoliberal economics, dismantling protection of the environment, dismantling consumer
protection and stopping of prosecution of financial fraud – as "wealth creation" instead
of impoverishment and austerity for the economy at large. So basically, my book reviews the
economic vocabulary and language people use to perceive reality.
When I was in college sixty years ago, they were still teaching the linguistic ideas of
Benjamin Lee Whorf. His idea was that language affects how people perceive reality. Different
cultures and linguistic groups have different modes of expression. I found that if I was going
to a concert and speaking German, I would be saying something substantially different than if I
were speaking English.
Viewing the economic vocabulary as propaganda, I saw that we can understand how the words
you hear as largely propaganda words. They've changed the meaning to the opposite of what the
classical economists meant. But if you untangle the reversal of meaning and juxtapose a more
functional vocabulary you can better understand what's actually happening.
ORDER IT NOW
BONNIE FAULKNER: You write that "the terms rentier and usury that played so central
a role in past centuries now sound anachronistic and have been replaced with more positive
Orwellian doublethink," which is what you've begun to explain. In fact, your book J is for
Junk – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception is all about the depredation of
vocabulary to hide reality, particularly the state of the economy. Just as history is written
by the victors, you point out that economic vocabulary is defined by today's victors, the
rentier financial class. How is this deception accomplished?
MICHAEL HUDSON: It's been accomplished in a number of ways. The first and most brutal way
was simply to stop teaching the history of economic thought. When I went to school 60 years
ago, every graduate economics student had to study the history of economic thought. You'd get
Adam Smith, Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, Marx and Veblen. Their analysis had a common
denominator: a focus on unearned income, which they called rent. Classical economics
distinguished between productive and unproductive activity, and hence between wealth and
overhead. The traditional landlord class inherited its wealth from ancestors who conquered the
land by military force. These hereditary landlords extract rent, but don't do anything to
create a product. They don't produce output. The same is true of other recipients of rent.
Accordingly, the word used through the 19 th century was rentier . It's a
French word. In French, a rente was income from a government bond. A rentier
was a coupon clipper, and the rent was interest. Today in German, a Rentner is a
retiree receiving pension income. The common denominator is a regular payment stipulated in
advance, as distinct from industrial profit.
The classical economists had in common a description of rent and interest as something that
a truly free market would get rid of. From Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill down to Marx and the
socialists, a free market was one that was free of a parasitic overclass that got income
without doing work. They got money by purely exploitative means, by charging rent that doesn't
really have to be paid; by charging interest; by charging monopoly rent for basic
infrastructure services and public utilities that a well-organized government should provide
freely to people instead of letting monopolists put up toll booths on roads and for technology
and patent rights simply to extract wealth. The focus of economics until World War I was the
contrast between production and extraction.
An economic fight ensued and the parasites won. The first thing rentiers –
the financial class and monopolists, a.k.a. the 1% – did was to say, "We've got to stop
teaching the history of economic thought so that people don't even have a memory that there is
any such a thing as economic rent as unearned income or the various policies proposed to
minimize it. We have to take the slogan of the socialist reformers – a free market
– and redefine it as a free market is one free from government – that is,
from "socialism" – not free from landlords, bankers and monopolists." They turned the
vocabulary upside down to mean the opposite. But in order to promote this deceptive vocabulary
they had to erase all memory of the fact that these words originally meant the opposite.
BONNIE FAULKNER: How has economic history been rewritten by redefining the meaning of words?
What is an example of this? For instance, what does the word "reform" mean now as opposed to
what reform used to mean?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Reform used to mean something social democratic. It meant getting rid of
special privileges, getting rid of monopolies and protecting labor and consumers. It meant
controlling the prices that monopolies could charge, and regulating the economy to prevent
fraud or exploitation – and most of all, to prevent unearned income or tax it away.
In today's neoliberal vocabulary, "reform" means getting rid of socialism. Reform
means stripping away protection or labor and even of industry. It means deregulating the
economy, getting rid of any kind of price controls, consumer protection or environmental
protection. It means creating a lawless economy where the 1% are in control, without public
checks and balances. So reform today means getting rid of all of the reforms that were promoted
in the 19 th and early-20 th century. The Nobel Economics Prize reflects
this neoliberal (that is, faux-liberal) travesty of "free markets."
BONNIE FAULKNER: What were the real reforms of the progressive era?
MICHAEL HUDSON: To begin with, you had unions to protect labor. You had limitations on the
workweek and the workday, how much work people had to do to earn a living wage. There were
safety protections. There was protection of the quality of food, and of consumer safety to
prevent dangerous products. There was anti-trust regulation to prevent price gouging by
monopolies. The New Deal took basic monopolies of public service such as roads and
communications systems out of the hands of monopolists and make them public. Instead of using a
road or the phone system to exploit users by charging whatever the market would bear, basic
needs were provided at the lowest possible costs, or even freely in the case of schools, so
that the economy would have a low cost of living and hence a low business overhead.
The guiding idea of reform was to get rid of socially unnecessary income. If landlords were
going to charge rent for properties that they did nothing to improve, but merely raise the
rents whenever cities built more transportation or more parks or better schools, this rent
would be taxed away.
The income tax was a basic reform back in 1913. Only 1% of America's population had to pay
the tax. Most were tax-free, because the aim was to tax the rentiers who lived off
their bond or stock holdings, real estate or monopolies. The solution was simply to tax the
wealthiest 1% or 2% instead of labor or industry, that is, the companies that actually produced
something. This tax philosophy helped make America the most productive, lowest-cost and
competitive yet also the most equal economy in the world at that time.
ORDER IT NOW
This focus on real industry has gradually been undermined. Today, if you're a real estate
speculator, monopolist, bankster or financial fraudster, your idea of reform is to get rid of
laws that protect consumers, tenants, homebuyers and the public at large. You campaign for
"consumer choice," as if protection is "interference" with the choice to be poisoned, cheated
or otherwise exploited. You deregulate laws designed to protect the atmosphere, free air and
water. If you're a coal or oil company, your idea of reform is to get rid of the Clean Air Act,
as the Trump administration has been doing.
The counterpart to junk science is junk economics. It is a lobbying effort to defend the
idea of a world without any laws or regulations against the wealthy, only against the debtors
and the poor, only against consumers for the "theft" of downloading music or stealing
somebody's patented songs or drug monopoly privilege. This turns inside out the classical
philosophy of fairness.
BONNIE FAULKNER: According to 19 th -century classical economists, what is
fictitious capital, and why is this distinction no longer being made by economists?
MICHAEL HUDSON: That's a wonderful question. Today the term "fictitious capital" is usually
associated with Marx, but it was used by many people in the 19 th century, even by
right-wing libertarians such as Henry George.
Fictitious capital referred to purely extractive claims for income, as distinct from profits
and wages earned from tangible means of production. Real capital referred to factories,
machinery and tools, things that were used to produce output, as well as education, research
and public infrastructure. But an ownership privilege like a title to land and other real
estate, a patent or the monopoly privilege to charge whatever the market will bear for a
restricted patent, without reference to actual production costs, does not add anything to
production. It is purely extractive, yielding economic rent, not profits on real capital
investment.
BONNIE FAULKNER: You say that by the late-19 th century, "reform movements were
gaining the upper hand, that nearly everyone saw industrial capitalism evolving into what was
widely called socialism." How would you describe the socialism that classical economists like
Mill or Marx envisioned?
MICHAEL HUDSON: They all called themselves socialists. There were many kinds of socialism in
the late 19 th century. Christians promoted Christian socialism, and anarchists
promoted an individualistic socialism. Mill was called a Ricardian socialist. The common
denominator among socialists was their recognition that the industrial capitalism of their day
was a transitory stage burdened by the remnants of feudalism, headed by the landlord class
whose hereditary rule was a legacy of the medieval military invasions of England, France,
Germany and the rest of Europe. This was the class that controlled the upper house of
government, e.g ., Britain's Lordships. For socialists, the guiding idea was to run
factories and operate land and provide public services for the economy at large to grow instead
of imposing austerity and letting the rentier classes exploit the rest of the economy
and concentrate income, political control and tax policy in their own hands.
Until World War I, socialism was popular because most people saw industrial capitalism as
evolving. Politics was in motion. The term "capitalism," by the way, was coined by Werner
Sombart, not Marx. But classical political economy culminated in Marx. He looked at society's
broad laws of motion to see where they were leading.
The socialist idea was not only that of Marx but also of American business school professors
like Simon Patten of the WhartonSchool. He said that the kind of economy that would dominate
the world's future was one that was the most efficient in preventing monopoly and preventing or
taxing away absentee land rent so that almost all income would be paid as wages and profits,
not rent or interest or monopoly rents.
The business classes in the United States, Germany and even in England were in favor of
reform – that is, anti-rentier reform. They recognized that only a strong government
would have the political power to tax away or regulate parasitic economic rent by the
wealthiest classes at that time, in the late 19 th and early 20 th
century. This economic and political cleanup of the rentiers stemmed very largely from
the ideological battle that occurred in England after the Napoleonic Wars were over in 1815.
Ricardo, representing the banking class, argued against Reverend Malthus, the population
theorist who also was a spokesman for the landlord class. Malthus urged agricultural
protectionism for landlords, so that they would get more and more rent from their land as grain
prices were kept high. Ricardo argued that high food prices to support rents for the
agricultural landlords would mean high labor costs for industrial employers. And if you have
high labor costs then England cannot be the industrial workshop of the world. In order for
England to become the industrial supreme power, it needed to overcome the power of its landlord
class. Instead of protecting it, England decided to protect its industrial capital by repealing
its protectionist Corn Laws in 1846. (I describe its strategy in my history of theories of
Trade, Development and Foreign Debt .)
At that time England's banking class was still a carryover from Europe's Medieval period.
Christianity had banned the charging of interest, so banks were able to make their money by
combining their loans with a foreign exchange charge, called agio. Banks even
Ricardo's day in the early 19 th century made most of their money by financing
foreign trade and charging foreign exchange fees. If your listeners they have ever tried to
change money at the airport, they will know what a big rake-off the change booths take.
Later in the 19 th century, bankers began to shift their lending away from
international trade financing to real estate as home ownership became democratized. Home owners
became their own landlords – but on mortgage credit.
ORDER IT NOW
Today we're no longer in the situation that existed in England 200 years ago. Almost
two-thirds of the American families own their homes. In Scandinavia and much of Europe, 80% are
homeowners. They don't pay rent to landlords. Instead, they pay their income as interest to the
mortgage lenders. That's because hardly anyone has enough money to buy a
few-hundred-thousand-dollar home with the cash in their pocket. They have to borrow the money.
The income that used to be paid as rent to a landlord is now paid as interest to the mortgage
banker. So you have a similar kind of exploitation today that you had two centuries ago, with
the major difference that the banking and financial class has replaced the landlord class.
Already by the late-19 th century, socialists were advocating that money and
credit don't have to take the form of gold and silver. Governments can create their own money.
That's what the United States did in the Civil War with its greenbacks. It simply printed the
money – and gave it value by making it acceptable for payment of taxes. In addition to
the doctrine that land and basic infrastructure should be owned by the public sector –
that is, by governments – banking was seen as a public utility. Credit was to be created
for productive purposes, not for rent-extracting activities or financial speculation. Land
would be fully taxed so that instead of labor or even most industry paying an income tax,
rentiers would pay tax on wealth that took the form of rent-extracting privileges.
The aim of classical economics was to tax unearned income, not wages and profits. The tax
burden was to fall on the landlord class first and foremost, then on monopolists and bankers.
The result was to bea circular flow in which taxes would be paid mainly out of rent and other
unearned income, and the government would spend this revenue on infrastructure, schools and
other productive investment to help make the economy more competitive. Socialism was seen as a
program to create a more efficient capitalist economy along these lines, until the word was
hijacked by the Russian Revolution after World War I. The Soviet Union became a travesty of
Marxism and the word socialism.
BONNIE FAULKNER: You write that: "Today's anti-classical vocabulary redefines free markets
as ones that are free for rent extractors and that rent and interest reflect their
recipients' contribution to wealth, not their privileges to extract economic rent
from the economy." How do you differentiate between productive and extractive sectors,
and how is it that the extractive sectors, essentially Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
(FIRE), actually burden the economy?
MICHAEL HUDSON: If you're a real estate owner, you want lower property taxes so that as the
economy grows and people are able to pay more rent, or when a land site in a neighborhood
becomes more valuable because the government builds a new subway – like New York City's
Second Avenue line – real estate prices rise to reflect the property's higher income that
is not taxed.
New York landlords all along the subway line raised rents. That meant that their real estate
had a "capital" gain reflecting the higher rent roll. Individual owners fortunate enough to own
a condo or a townhouse near the stations became more wealthy – while new renters or
buyers had to pay much more than before. None of this price rise created more living space or
other output (although today's post-classical GDP figures pretend that it did!). It simply
meant that instead of recapturing the $10 billion the government spent on this subway extension
by taxing the increased land valuations all along the subway route, New York's income and real
estate taxes have been raised for everybody, to pay interest on the bonds issued to finance the
subway's construction. So the city's cost of living and doing business rises – while the
Upper East Side landlords have received a free lunch.
Creating that kind of real estate "fictitious wealth" is a capitalization of unearned income
– unearned because the Upper East Side landlords didn't do anything themselves to
increase the value of their property. The City raised rental values by making the sites more
desirable when it built the subway extension.
The same logic applies to insurance. When President Obama passed the basically Republican
Obamacare law advocated by the pharmaceutical and health management sectors, the cost of
medical care went way up in the United States. It was organized so as to be a giveaway to the
healthcare and pharmaceutical monopolies.
None of this increased payment for medical care increases its quality. In fact, the more
that's paid for medical care, the more the service declines, because it is paid to health
insurance companies that try to legally fight against consumers. The effect is predatory, not
productive.
Finally, you have the financial part of the FIRE sector. Finance has accounted for almost
all of the growth in U.S. GDP in the ten years since the Lehman Brothers crisis and the Obama
bailout in 2008. The biggest banks at that time were insolvent as a result of bad loans and
outright financial fraud. But the government created $4.3 trillion of reserves to bail out
Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, with Goldman Sachs thrown in, despite the fact that
their fraudulent junk mortgage loans were predatory, not productive credit that actually
increased wealth in the form of productive power. There's a growing understanding that the
financial sector has become so dysfunctional that it is a deadweight on the economy, burdening
it with increasing debt charges –student loans are an example – instead of actually
helping the economy grow.
BONNIE FAULKNER: So just to reiterate, what is the classical distinction between earned and
unearned income?
MICHAEL HUDSON: This distinction is based on classical value and price theory. Price is what
people have to pay. The margin of price over and above real cost value is called economic rent.
A product's value is its actual, necessary costs of production: the cost of labor, raw
materials and machinery, and other elements of what it costs to tangibly produce it. Rent and
financial charges are the product of special privileges that have been privatized and now
financialized.
ORDER IT NOW
Classical value theory isolated this economic rent as unearned income. It was the aim of
society either to prevent it from occurring in the first place, by anti-monopoly regulation or
by public land ownership, or to tax it away in cases where you can't help it going up. For
instance, it's natural for neighborhoods to become more valuable and high-priced over time as
the economy gets richer. But it doesn't cost more to construct buildings there, and rents keep
going up and up and up on buildings that were put up 100 years ago. This increased rent does
not reflect any new cost of production. It's a free lunch.
Neoliberals, most notoriously the University of Chicago's Milton Friedman at, kept insisting
that "There's no such thing as a free lunch." But that's exactly what most of the wealth and
income of the richest 1% is. It's the result of running the economy primarily to siphon off a
rentier free lunch. Of course, its recipients try to distract public attention from
this face and tell national income and Gross Domestic Product statisticians to pretend that
they actually earn their income wealth, not merely transfer income from the rest of the economy
into their hands as creditors, monopolists and landlords. The leading Wall Street firm Goldman
Sachs said so notoriously a few years ago that "Our partners are the most productive in the
country because look at how much we're paid." But they don't really earn their wealth
in the classical sense of earning by performing a productive economic service. The economy
would get along much better without Goldman Sachs and indeed the banking and financial system
or the health insurance system being run the way they are, and without real estate the being
untaxed in the way that it is.
BONNIE FAULKNER: I noticed that you used the term "rent" for unearned income. Is rent the
same as profit, or not?
MICHAEL HUDSON: It's not at all the same. Profit is earned by investing in a means of
production to make useful goods and services. Classical economists viewed profit as an element
of cost if you're going to have a privately owned economy – and most socialists have
accepted private ownership, although in a system regulated so as to benefit society as a whole.
If you make a profit by a productive act acting within this system, you've earned it by being
productive.
Economic rent is different. It is not earned by actively building means of production,
conducting research or development. It's passive income. When pharmaceutical companies earn
rent, it's simply for charging much more for the drugs they sell than it actually costs to
produce them. This is especially the case when the government has borne the research and
development cost of the drugs and simply assigns the rent-yielding patent privilege to the
pharmaceutical companies. So rent is something over and above the profit necessary to induce
the activity that these companies actually perform. Profits are why investors produce more.
Rent is not necessary. If you got rid of it, you wouldn't discourage production, because it's
purely an overhead charge, whereas profits are a production charge in a capitalist economy.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Well, thank you for that distinction between rent and profit. That's a very
important thing to understand.
MICHAEL HUDSON: I describe it more clearly in my book, which includes the appropriate
classical quotations.
BONNIE FAULKNER: You point out that interest and rent are reported as "earnings," as if
bankers and landlords produce gross domestic product (GDP) in the form of credit and ownership
services. How do you think interest and rent should be reported?
MICHAEL HUDSON: They should be classified interest and rent. But the rentier
classes have taken over the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) to depict their takings
as actual production of a service, not as overhead or a transfer payment, that is, not as
parasitic extraction of other peoples' earnings.
For instance, suppose you have a credit card and you miss a payment, or miss a payment on a
student loan, electric bill or your rent. The credit card company will use this as an excuse to
raise your interest charge from 11% to 29%. The national income account treat this rise to 29%
as providing a "financial service." The so-called service is simply charging a penalty rate.
The pretense is that everything that a bank charges – higher interest or penalties
– is by definition providing a service, not simply extracting money from cardholders,
transferring income from them to itself.
Classical economists would have subtracted this financial rake-off from output, counting it
as overhead. After all, it simply adds to the cost of living and doing business. Instead, the
most recent statisticians have added this financial income to the Gross National
Product instead of subtracting it, as the classical economists would have done – or
simply not counted it, as was the case a generation ago.
Most reporters and the financial press don't get into the nitty-gritty of these national
accounts, so they don't realize how lobbyists have intervened in recent years to turn them into
propaganda flattering bankers and property owners. Today's "reformed" GDP format pretends that
the economy has been going up since 2008. A more realistic description would show that it is
shrinking for 95 percent of the population, being eaten away by the wealthiest 5% extracting
more rentier income and imposing austerity.
If you look at the national balance sheet of assets and liabilities, the economy is becoming
more debt-ridden. As student debt and mortgage debt go up, and penalty fees, arrears and
defaults are rising. The long rise in home ownership rates is being reversed, and rents are
rising, while people also have to pay more for medical care and other basic needs. Academic
economists depict this as "consumer choice" or "demand," as if it is all a voluntary choice of
"the market." The GDP accounting format has been modified to make it appear that the economy is
getting richer. This statistical sleight-of-hand is achieved by counting the takings of the
rentier 1% as a product, not a cost borne by the economy at large. What really should
be shown is a loss – land and monopoly rent, interest and penalties is in fact so large a
"product" that the economy seems to be growing. But most of that growth is unreal.
BONNIE FAULKNER: How does government fiscal policy, taxation and expenditure influence the
economy?
ORDER IT NOW
MICHAEL HUDSON: That's what Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is all about. When governments run
a budget deficit, they pump money into the economy. For Keynesians the money goes into the real
economy in ways that employ labor. For neoliberals, quantitative easing is spent directly into
the financial sector, and is used to finance the purchase of real estate, stocks and bonds,
supporting the valuation of wealth owned mainly by the One Percent. The effect is to make
housing more expensive, and also the price of buying a retirement income. Having to take on
larger mortgage debt to buy a house and spend less each month in order to save for one's
pension is not really "wealth creation," unless your perspective is that of the One Percent
increasing its power over the 99%.
At least the United States is able to run deficits and avoid the kind of unemployment and
austerity that Europe is imposing on itself and especially on Greece and Italy. I think in one
of our talks on this show explained the problem that Europe is suffering. Under the
constitution of the Eurozone, its member countries are not allowed to run a budget deficit of
more than 3%. Most actually aim at extracting a surplus from the economy (as distinct from
producing a surplus for the economy). That means that the government doesn't spend
money into the economy. People and businesses are obliged to get their money from the banks.
That requires them to pay more interest. All Europe is on the road to looking like
Greece– debt-strapped economies that are kept artificially alive by the government
creating reserves to give to the banks and bail out bond markets, not spending into economies
to help them recover.
The ability to create debt by writing a bank loan that creates a deposit is a legal
privilege. There's no reason why governments cannot do this themselves. Instead of borrowing
from private creditors to finance their budget deficits, governments can create their own money
– without burdening budgets with interest charges. Credit creation has little cost of
production, and therefore does not require interest charges to cover this cost. The interest is
a form of monopoly rent to privatized privilege.
Classical economists saw the proper role of government as being to create social
infrastructure and upgrade living standards and productivity for their labor force. Governments
should build roads to minimize the cost of transportation, not private companies creating toll
roads to maximize the cost by building in financial charges, real estate and management charges
to what users have to pay. Government should be in charge of providing public health insurance,
not private companies that charge extortionate prices and whatever the market will bear for
their drugs. It's the government that should run prisons, not private companies that use
prisoners as cheap labor to make a profit and advocate that more people get arrested so to make
more of a profit from their incarceration.
The great question is, what is the government going to spend money on, and how can it spend
money into the economy in a way that helps growth? Imagine if this trillion dollars a year
that's spent on arms and military – in California and the districts of the key
congressmen on the budget committee – were spent on building roads, schools,
transportation and subsidizing medical care. The country could become a utopia. Instead, the
rentier classes have hijacked the government, taking over its money creation and
taxing power to spend on themselves, not to help the economy at large produce more or raise
living standards. Special interests have captured the regulatory agencies to make them serve
rent extractors, not protect the economy from them.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Interest is tax-deductible, whereas profit is taxable. Does the tax
deductibility of interest have a major impact on the economy?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, because tax deductibility encourages companies to raise money by going
into debt. This tax deductibility of interest catalyzed the corporate raiding movement of the
1980s. It was based on debt leveraging.
Suppose a company makes $100 million a year in profit and pays this out to its stockholders
as dividends. In the 1980s this profit was taxed at about 50%, so you could only pay $50
million to the stockholders. Then as today, they were the wealthiest layer of the population.
Drexel Burnham and other Wall Street firms sought out corporate raiders as clients and offered
to lend them enough money to buy companies out, by buying out their stockholders. Stocks were
replaced by bonds. That enabled companies to pay out twice as much income as interest than they
had been paying as dividends. When they bought out target companies with debt, a company could
pay all $100 million of its income as interest instead of only $50 million as dividends on
stock.
So the wealthiest classes in the United States and other countries decided that they could
get more from own bonds than stocks anymore. Government revenue declined by the added amount
paid to financial investors as a result of this tax subsidy for debt.
The advantage of issuing stocks is that when business conditions turn down and profits fall,
companies can cut back their dividend. But if they have committed to pay this $100 million to
bondholders, when their earnings go down they may face insolvency.
The result was a wave of bankruptcy since the 1980s as companies became more debt-pyramided.
Also companies heads went to the labor unions and threatened to declare bankruptcy and wipe out
their pension funds, if their leaders did not agree to change these funds and replace the
guaranteed retirement pension that were promised for a defined contribution plan. All they know
is what they have to pay in every month. Retirees will only get whatever is left when they
reach pension age. The equity economy shift into a debt economy has enriched the wealthy
financial class at the top, while hurting employees.
Most statistical trends turned around in 1980 for almost every country as this shift
occurred. Indebting companies has made them more fragile and also higher-cost, because now they
have to factor in the price of interest payments to the bondholders and corporate raiders
who've taken them over.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Do you think that changes should be made to the tax deductibility of
interest?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Sure. If interest were to be taxed, that would leave less incentive for
companies to keep on adding debt. It would deter corporate raiding. It is a precondition for
companies being run to minimize their cost of production and to serve their labor force and
their customers more. For homebuyers, removing the tax-deductibility of interest would leave
less "free" rent to be pledged to banks for mortgages, and hence would reduce the size of bank
loans that bid up housing prices.
ORDER IT NOW
I think that interest and rents should be taxed, not wages and legitimate profits. The FICA
wage withholding now absorbs almost 16% of most wage-earning income for Social Security and
Medicare. But wealthy people don't have to pay any contribution on what they make over than
about $ $116,000 a year. They don't have to pay any FICA contribution on their capital gains,
which is how most fortunes are made. The rentiers' idea of a free market is to make
labor pay for all of the Social Security and Medicare – and then to give so much to Wall
Street that they can say, "Oh, there's no more money. The system's short, so we have to wipe
out Social Security," just as so many companies have wiped out the pension commitments. As
George W. Bush said, tere's not really any money in the Social Security accounts. Its tax on
the lower income brackets was all used to cut taxes on the higher income and wealth brackets.
The economy has been turned into a grab bag for the rich.
BONNIE FAULKNER: What about monetary policy, interest rates and the money supply? Who
controls monetary policy, and how does it affect the economy?
MICHAEL HUDSON: The biggest banks put their lobbyists in charge of the Federal Reserve,
which was created in 1913 to take monetary policy out of the hands of the Treasury in
Washington and put it in the hands of Wall Street. That made the Fed a lobbyist for its
members, the commercial banking system. It's run to control the money supply – in
practice, the debt supply – in a way that steers money into the banks. That's why not a
single banker was jailed for committing the junk mortgage scams and other frauds that caused
the crash. The Fed has turned the banking system into a predatory monopoly instead of the
public service that it was once supposed to be.
Monetary policy is really debt policy, because money is debt on the liabilities side of the
balance sheet. The question is, what kind of debt is the economy going to have, and
what happens when it exceeds the ability to be paid? How is the government going to provide the
economy with money, and what will it do to keep debts line with the ability to be paid? Will
money and credit be provided to build more factories and product more output, to rebuild
American manufacturing and infrastructure? Or, are you going to leave credit and debt creation
to the banks, to make larger loans for people to buy homes at rising prices reflecting the
increasingly highly leveraged and outright reckless credit creation?
Monetary policy is debt policy, and on balance most debts are owed by the bottom 90% to the
wealthiest 10%. So monetary policy becomes an exercise in how the 10% can extract more and more
interest, rent and capital gains from the economy – all the while making money by
impoverishing the economy, not helping most people prosper.
BONNIE FAULKNER: The economy is always being planned by someone or some force, be it Wall
Street, the government or whatever. It's not the result of natural law, as you point out in
your book. It seems like a lot of people think that the economy should somehow run itself
without interference. Could you explain how this is an absurd idea?
MICHAEL HUDSON: It's an example of rhetoric overcoming people's common sense. Every economy
since the Stone Age has been planned. Even in the stone age people had to plan when to plant
the crops, when to harvest them, how much seed you had to keep over for the next year. You had
to operate on credit during the crop year to get beer and rent draft animals. Somebody's in
charge of every economy.
So when people talk about an unplanned economy, they mean no government planning.
They mean that planning should be taken out of the hands of government and put in the hands of
the 1%. That is what they mean by a "free market." They pretend that if the 1% control the
economy it's not really a planned economy anymore, because it's not planned by government,
officials serving the public interest. It's planned by Wall Street. So the question is, really,
who's going to plan the American economy? Is it going to be the government of elected
officials, or is it going to be Wall Street? Wall Street will euphemize its central planning by
saying this is a free market – meaning it's free of government regulation, especially
over the financial sector and the mining companies and other monopolies that are its major
clients.
BONNIE FAULKNER: You emphasize the difference between the study of 19 th -century
classical political economy and modern-day economics. How and when and why did political
economy become "economics"?
MICHAEL HUDSON: If you look at the books that almost everybody wrote in the 19 th
century, they called it political economy because economics is political. And
conversely, economics is what politics has always been about. Who's getting what? Or as Lenin
said, who-whom? It's about how society makes decisions about who's going to get rich and how
they are going to do it. Are they going to get wealthy by acting productively, or
parasitically? Eeverything economic turns out to be political.
The economy's new central planners on Wall Street pretend that what they're doing is not
political. Cutting taxes on themselves is depicted as a law of nature. But they deny that this
is politics, as if there's nothing anyone can do about it. Margaret Thatcher's refrain was
"There is no alternative" (TINA). That is the numbing political sedative injected into today's
economic discussion.
The aim is to make people think that there is no alternative because if they're getting
poorer, if they're losing their home by defaulting on a junk mortgage of if they have to pay so
much on the student loan so that they can't afford to buy a home, or if they find that the only
kind of job they can get driving an Uber car, it's all their fault. It's as if that's just
nature, not the way the economy has been malstructured.
The role of neoliberalism is to make people think that they are powerless in the face of
"the market," as if markets are not socially and politically structured. The 1% have hired
lobbyists and subsidized business schools so as to shape markets in their own interest. Their
aim is to control the economy and call it "nature." Their patter talk is that poverty is
natural for short-sighted "deplorables," not the result of the predatory neoliberal takeover
since 1980 and their capture of the Justice Department so that none of the bank fraudsters go
to jail.
ORDER IT NOW
BONNIE FAULKNER: In your chapter on the letter M – of course, we have chapters from A
to Z – in your chapter on M, you have an entry for Hyman Minsky, an economist who
pioneered Modern Monetary Theory and explained the three stages of the financial cycle in terms
of rising debt leveraging. What is debt leveraging, and how does it lead to a crisis?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Debt leveraging means buying an asset on credit. Lending for home ownership
in the United States is the leading example. From the 1940s to the 1960s, if you took out a
mortgage, the banker would look at your income and calculate that the mortgage on the house you
buy shouldn't absorb more than 25% of your income. The idea was that this would leave enough
income to pay the interest charge and amortize – that is, pay off – the mortgage 30
years later, near the end of your working life. Minsky called this first credit stage the hedge
stage, meaning that banks had hedged their bets within limits that enabled the economy to carry
and pay off its debts.
In the second credit stage, banks lent more and loosened their lending standards so that
mortgages would absorb much more than 25% of the borrower's income. At a certain point, people
could not afford to amortize, that is to pay off the mortgage. All they could do was to pay the
interest charge. By the 1980s, the federal government was lending up to almost 40% of the
borrower's income, writing mortgages without any amortization taking place. The mortgage
payment simply carried the existing homeowner's debt. Banks in fact didn't want to ever be
repaid. They wanted to go on collecting interest on as much debt as possible.
Finally, Minsky said, the Ponzi stage occurred when the homeowner didn't even have enough
money to pay the interest charge, but had to borrow the interest. So this was how Third World
countries had gotten through the 1970s and the early 1980s. The government of, let's say Mexico
or Brazil or Argentina, would say, well, we don't have the dollars to pay the debt, and the
banks would say, we'll just add the interest onto the debt. Same thing with a credit card or a
mortgage. The mortgage homeowner would say, I don't have enough money to pay the mortgage, and
the bank would say, well, just take out a larger mortgage; we'll just lend you the money to pay
the interest.
That's the Ponzi stage and it was named after Carlo Ponzi and his Ponzi scheme –
paying early buyers out of income paid into the scheme by new entrants. That's the stage that
the economy entered around 2007-08. It became a search for the proverbial "greater fool"
willing to borrow to buy overpriced real estate. That caused the crash, and we're still in the
post-crash austerity interim (before yet a deeper debt writeoff or new bailout). The debts have
been left in place, not written down. If you have a credit card and have to pay a monthly
balance but lack enough to pay down your debt, your balance will keep going up every month,
adding the interest charge onto the debt balance.
Any volume of debt tends to grow at compound interest. The result is an exponential growth
that doubles the debt in little time. Any rate of interest is a doubling time. If debt keeps
doubling and redoubling, it's carrying charges are going to crowd out the other expenses in
your budget. You'll have to pay more money to the banks for student loans, credit card debts,
auto loans and mortgage debt, leaving less to spend on goods and services. That's why the
economy is shrinking right now. That's why people today aren't able to do what their parents
were able to do 50 years ago – buy a home they can live in by paying a quarter of their
income.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Dr. Michael Hudson, thank you so very much.
So at the moment when everybody assumed that Trump lost control of the foreign policy, he
does this. It's a real surprise. Kind of Christmas gift to his voters. And that's with neocon
Pompeo as his State Secretary and neocon Bolton as his national security advisor.
The War Party project of regime change in Tehran suffered a severe setback with the U.S.
pullout from Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... Forced to choose between Turkey, with 80 million people and the second-largest army in NATO, which sits astride the Dardanelles and Bosphorus entrance to the Black Sea, and the stateless Kurds with their Syrian Democratic Forces, or YPG, Trump chose Recep Tayyip Erdogan. ..."
"... And Erdogan regards the YPG as kinfolk and comrades of the Kurdish terrorist PKK in Turkey. A week ago, he threatened to attack the Kurds in northern Syria, though U.S. troops are embedded alongside them. What kind of deal did Trump strike with Erdogan? Turkey will purchase the U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft and missile defense system for $3.5 billion, and probably forego the Russian S-400. Trump also told Erdogan that we "would take a look at" extraditing Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen whom the Turkish president says instigated the 2016 coup attempt that was to end with his assassination. ..."
"... The war party project, to bring about regime change in Tehran through either crippling sanctions leading to insurrection or a U.S.-Iranian clash in the Gulf, will suffer a severe setback with the U.S. pullout from Syria. ..."
"We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there," wrote President Donald
Trump as he ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Syria, stunning the U.S. foreign
policy establishment.
Trump overruled his secretaries of state and defense, and jolted this city and capitals
across NATO Europe and the Middle East.
Yet Trump is doing exactly what he promised to do in his campaign. And what his decision
seems to say is this:
We are extricating America from the forever war of the Middle East so foolishly begun by
previous presidents. We are coming home. The rulers and peoples of this region are going to
have to find their own way and fight their own wars. We are not so powerful that we can fight
their wars while also confronting Iran and North Korea and facing new cold wars with Russia and
China.
As for the terrorists of ISIS, says Trump, they are defeated.
Yet despite the heavy casualties and lost battles ISIS has suffered, along with the collapse
of the caliphate and expulsion from its Syrian capital Raqqa and Iraqi capital Mosul and from
almost all territories it controlled in both countries, the group is not dead. It lives on in
thousands of true believers hidden in those countries. And like al-Qaeda, it has followers
across the Middle East and inspires haters of the West living in the West.
The U.S. pullout from Syria is being called a victory for Vladimir Putin. "Russia, Iran,
Assad are ecstatic!" wailed Senator Lindsey Graham.
Graham was echoed by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse who called the withdrawal a "retreat" and
charged that Trump's generals "believe the high-fiving winners today are Iran, ISIS and
Hezbollah."
But ISIS is a Sunni terrorist organization. And as such, it detests the Alawite regime of
Bashar Assad, and Hezbollah and Iran, both of which are viewed by ISIS as Shiite heretics.
"Russia, Iran, Syria are not happy about the US leaving," Trump tweeted, "despite what the Fake
News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us."
If Putin, victorious in the Syrian civil war, wishes to fight al-Qaeda and ISIS, the last
major enemies of Assad in Syria, why not let him?
The real losers?
Certainly the Kurds, who lose their American ally. Any dream they had of greater autonomy
inside Syria, or an independent state, is not going to be realized. But then, that was never
really in the cards.
Forced to choose between Turkey, with 80 million people and the second-largest army in
NATO, which sits astride the Dardanelles and Bosphorus entrance to the Black Sea, and the
stateless Kurds with their Syrian Democratic Forces, or YPG, Trump chose Recep Tayyip
Erdogan.
And Erdogan regards the YPG as kinfolk and comrades of the Kurdish terrorist PKK in
Turkey. A week ago, he threatened to attack the Kurds in northern Syria, though U.S. troops are
embedded alongside them. What kind of deal did Trump strike with Erdogan? Turkey will purchase
the U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft and missile defense system for $3.5 billion, and probably forego
the Russian S-400. Trump also told Erdogan that we "would take a look at" extraditing Muslim
cleric Fethullah Gulen whom the Turkish president says instigated the 2016 coup attempt that
was to end with his assassination.
National security advisor John Bolton, who said U.S. troops would remain in Syria until all
Iranian forces and Iran-backed militias have been expelled, appears not to have been speaking
for his president. And if the Israelis were relying on U.S. forces in Syria to intercept any
Iranian weapons shipments headed to Hezbollah in Lebanon through Damascus, then they are going
to have to make other arrangements.
The war party project, to bring about regime change in Tehran through either crippling
sanctions leading to insurrection or a U.S.-Iranian clash in the Gulf, will suffer a severe
setback with the U.S. pullout from Syria.
However, given the strength of the opposition to a U.S. withdrawal -- Israel, Saudi Arabia,
the GOP foreign policy establishment in Congress and the think tanks, liberal interventionists
in the Beltway press, Trump's own national security team of advisors -- the battle to overturn
Trump's decision has probably only just begun.
From FDR's abandonment of 100 million East Europeans to Stalin at Yalta in 1945 to the
abandonment of our Nationalist Chinese allies to Mao in 1949 and of our South Vietnamese allies
in 1975, America has often been forced into retreats leading to the deaths of allies. Senator
Sasse says Trump is risking the same outcome: "A lot of American allies will be slaughtered if
this retreat is implemented."
But is that true?
Trump's decision to pull out of Syria at least has assured us of a national debate on what
it will mean to America to extricate our country from these Mideast wars. It is the kind of
debate we have not had in the 15 years since we were first deceived into invading Iraq.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and
read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com .
I believe "Syria" is a war crime planned and plotted by some western governments and their
allies. They are even reportedly financing and assisting terrorists. Which is criminal and
treasonous
-- -- --
"With their command and control centre based in Istanbul, Turkey, military supplies from
Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular were transported by Turkish intelligence to the border
for rebel acquisition. CIA operatives along with Israeli and Jordanian commandos were also
training FSA rebels on the Jordanian-Syrian border with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.
In addition, other reports show that British and French military were also involved in these
secret training programmes. It appears that the same FSA rebels receiving this elite training
went straight into ISIS – last month one ISIS commander, Abu Yusaf, said, 'Many of the
FSA people who the west has trained are actually joining us.'" Nafeez Ahmed http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state/
-- -- -- -- --
"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda,
ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or
ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for
years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and
other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to
overthrow the Syrian government.[i] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists
-- -- -- -- --
There is further abundant evidence available at links below: http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-christmas-report-on-crimes-of-war.html
"At the very least, America will have its first serious debate on its Mideast wars since 2003
. It is the kind of debate we have not had in the 15 years since we were first deceived into
invading Iraq."
Finally Mr Buchanan and I agree on something of substance. And I cannot believe I am in
agreement with Trump on this too (even though it was quite clumsy). Will wonders never
cease?
I hate that Trump will probably throw the Kurds under the bus since they acted as our
allies and suffered for it. And if I was Mr Fethullah Gulen I would be packing my bags for
Canada.
However, well done, sir. Now let the debate begin.
I think what is to be accomplished by the US staying in the Middle East? Hasn't over 17 years
and $600 billion spent and over a million dead been price enough? Hopefully, Syria is the 1st
step in ending American military involvement in the Middle East. America has enough to do in
taking care of serious issues here at home. As for the Middle East, let Israel, Saudia
Arabia, Turkey, Iran and other countries and ethnic groups who reside there solve their own
damn problems.
As a European it feels strange to feel this pro-Trump all of a sudden. Before you know it,
I'll order a MAGA cap (I'm always safe with that because carnaval is coming).
Russia just landed a nuclear bomber in Venezuela. Russia and China are making SIGNIFICANT
inroads in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and Africa.
If Israel comes under serious threat, the US will be there to assist in its defense but
the time has come when the US has to admit that the parasite freeloader nations like Europe
and Israel are coming at to high a cost a cost that is both distracting and obstructing the
US from being where it is really needed to deal with China and Russia.
People sit on their collective fat asses inside The Beltway within the confines of some book
lined conference room and make decisions involving the lives of thousands of young men and
women–other people's sons and daughters (never their own)– who may be dispatched
to take a bullet in anger. And over what? Making the MidEast "free for democracy"?
I dislike Trump even though I reluctantly voted for him only to keep the Congenital Liar
out of the White House. One of the few positives he exhibited was a desire to extricate the
United States from that MidEast hell-hole. For once at least he has delivered. Whether he
will succeed, however, remains to be seen. After all, the Beltway is swarming with chicken
hawks.
Very zero sum gain way of thinking. How can the US not spending hundreds of billions on a
lost cause be a win for Russia? Sounds more like a win for the US. I think the Syrian
government with Russia and Iran should be enough to demolish the physical caliphate.
Destroying ISIS ? Good luck with that suppress it OK but destroy easier said then done. How
have we done against, the Mafia? the IRA? drug cartels and so on and so forth. For those who
want to stay is there ever a set of conditions which would be satisfied allowing you to
leave? We are still in Germany, I think the Nazis are gone you can relax, if it was the
Soviets you worry about also gone by about 3 decades. If we can't accept that Germany is
sufficiently stable to no longer be blessed with our presence when oh when would Syria be
viewed as stable?
I have regretted voting for trump for many reasons. I concede that IF USA military leaves
Syria, this is a very positive development. He should now do the same for Afghanistan and
many other places around the world.
Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and the Syrian military have done a fine job of keeping IS on the
run. Let's hope they can finish the job.
In this issue at least I support Trump a hundred percent, and I think a lot of Americans
agree.
He's finally doing what he promised to do during the campaign.
I have been very unhappy with him, but if he follows through on this I'll give him credit.
Given the lock that the elites and establishment have on the media, it took guts. It's good
to see he has some.
While I didn't vote for this excrescence in The White House, I will give credit where credit
is due. Hillary's neocon impulses would have been infinitely worse here.
Still, looking at this past week, I can't help thinking about that whole Flight 93 thing.
But two years into The Trump presidency, it's starting to look more like that disaster movie
camp-fest Airport 1975, where we have crossed-eyed stewardess Karen Black trying to land the
stricken 747. In her immortal words to flight control: "Something hit us! There's no one left
to fly the plane! HELP US! OH MY GOD HELP US!!!"
"... Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis resigned from his position effective February 28. He disagreed with the president's decision. It was the second time in five years that an elected commander in chief had a serious conflict with Mattis' hawkishness. President Obama fired him as Central Command chief for urging a more aggressive Iran policy. Mattis is also extremely hawkish towards Russia and China. ..."
"... Mattis is an ingrained imperialist. He always asked for more money for the military and for more meddling abroad. One of Mattis' little notice acts as Defense Secretary was a unannounced change in the mission of the Pentagon : ..."
"... The Pentagon no longer "deters war" but provides "lethal force" to "sustain American influence abroad." There was no public nor congressional debate about the change. I doubt that President Trump agreed to it. Trump will now try to recruit a defense secretary that is more aligned with his own position. ..."
"... Associated Press ..."
"... Trump did not "capitulate". He always wanted to pull the U.S. troops out of Syria. He said so many times. When he was finally given a chance to do so, he grabbed the opportunity. Erdogan though, was not ready for that: ..."
"... Erdogan had planned to only occupy a 10 miles deep strip along the Syrian-Turkish border. Some 15,000 Turkish controlled 'Syrian rebels' stand ready for that. He would need some 50-100,000 troops to occupy all of east Syria northward of the Euphrates. It would be a hostile occupation among well armed Kurds who would oppose it and an Arab population that is not exactly friendly towards a neo-Ottoman Turkey. ..."
"... Any larger occupation of northeast Syria would create a serious mess for Turkey. Its army can do it, but it would cost a lot of casualties and financial resources. Turkey will hold local government election in March and Erdogan does not want any negative headlines. He will invade, but only if Syria and Russia fail to get the Kurds under control. ..."
"... 'The Pentagon's official website now defines its mission this way: "The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our country and sustain American influence abroad."' ..."
"... '"We had decided last week to launch a military incursion... east of the Euphrates river," he said in a speech in Istanbul'. So much for the UN Charter, then. Anyone who wants to can invade any other country and take over as much of its territory as he wants to - as long as Washington agrees. But, as Saddam Hussein could testify if he were still alive, it would be sensible to get such consent in writing. ..."
"... Macron's forces are illegally present too. Assad would have to request their presence, but I really doubt he will given the harm France has done to Syria over the past 7 years. Word is SAA's Tiger Forces will get sent East of Euphrates; when is now the question. ..."
"... One's got to worry about who will replace Mad Dog Mattis after February 28 next year. It would seem that whoever succeeds Mattis will be another former general, likely to share his views on maintaining and increasing US forces in Syria, Iraq and other parts of western Asia ..."
"... Compared to Mattis, Pompeo and Bolton, and now Nauert at the UN, are raving jingos. Thank Gord they have no ties to the US military. ..."
"... "there also a contingent of 1,100 French troops"... You can hear me laughing after reading this. The French empire was over a long long time ago and they still think that Syria is their colony. France has been sending French Jihadists for regime change in Syria since 2011 and their mission has failed since Russia intervened in 2015. France cannot even send troops to Mali - destabilized by Jihadists created by France in Libya to topple Kadhafi, without the help of the US!!! France is a de-facto vassal state of the US since they decided to joined the NATO central command under Sarkozy who was bribed by the zionist neocons. ..."
"... I personally distinguish between Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria and his move to withdraw partially from Afghanistan. The latter is a step towards ending a brutal, illegal NATO occupation war of over 17 years. The former is also illegal but the Syrian Kurds (left wing and largely communist) are likely to be supplanted as counters to "Iran" by fascists Turkey and Israel (this has been confirmed in reports), so we're moving from tactical NATO proxies to actual NATO governments seizing Syrian land. ..."
Fallout Of Trump's Syria Withdrawal - Why Erdogan Does Not Want To Invadeuuu
, Dec 21, 2018 1:37:31 PM |
link
President Trump's
strategic decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria creates some significant fallout.
The U.S. and international borg is enraged that Trump ends an occupation that is illegal
under international as well as U.S. domestic law. "That's un-American!"
Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis
resigned from his position effective February 28. He disagreed with the president's
decision. It was the second time in five years that an elected commander in chief had a
serious conflict with Mattis' hawkishness. President Obama
fired him as Central Command chief for urging a more aggressive Iran policy. Mattis is
also
extremely hawkish towards Russia and China.
President Trump campaigned on lessening U.S. involvement in wars abroad. He wants to get
reelected. He does not need a Secretary of Defense that involves him in more wars that have
little to none defined purpose.
Mattis is an ingrained imperialist. He always asked for more money for the military
and for more meddling abroad. One of Mattis' little notice acts as Defense Secretary was a
unannounced change in the mission of the Pentagon :
For at least two decades, the Department of Defense has explicitly defined its mission on
its website as providing "the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the
security of our country." But earlier this year, it quietly changed that statement, perhaps
suggesting a more ominous approach to national security.
...
The Pentagon's official website now defines its mission this way: "The mission of the
Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our
country and sustain American influence abroad."
The Pentagon no longer "deters war" but provides "lethal force" to "sustain American
influence abroad." There was no public nor congressional debate about the change. I doubt
that President Trump agreed to it. Trump will now try to recruit a defense secretary that is
more aligned with his own position.
The White House also announced that 7,000 of the 14,000 soldier the U.S. has in
Afghanistan will
withdraw over the next few months. The war in Afghanistan is lost with the Taliban ruling
over more than half of the country and the U.S. supported government forces losing more
personal than they can recruit. It was Mattis who had urged Trump to increase the troop
numbers in Afghanistan from 10,000 to 14,000 at the beginning of his term. There are also
8,000 NATO and allied troops in Afghanistan which will likely see a proportional
withdrawal.
The Associated Press has a
new tic toc of Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria:
Trump stunned his Cabinet, lawmakers and much of the world with the move by rejecting the
advice of his top aides and agreeing to a withdrawal in a phone call with Turkish President
Recep Tayyip Erdogan last week, two officials briefed on the matter said.
...
"The talking points were very firm," said one of the officials, explaining that Trump was
advised to clearly oppose a Turkish incursion into northern Syria and suggest the U.S. and
Turkey work together to address security concerns. "Everybody said push back and try to
offer (Turkey) something that's a small win, possibly holding territory on the border,
something like that."
Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had
repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic
State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. "Why are you still there?" the
second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the
remaining IS militants.
...
Erdogan's point, Bolton was forced to admit, had been backed up by Mattis, Pompeo, U.S.
special envoy for Syria Jim Jeffrey and special envoy for the anti-ISIS coalition Brett
McGurk, who have said that IS retains only 1 percent of its territory, the officials
said.
...
Bolton stressed, however, that the entire national security team agreed that victory over
IS had to be enduring, which means more than taking away its territory.
Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly
capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan.
Trump did not "capitulate". He always wanted to pull the U.S. troops out of Syria. He
said so many times. When he was finally given a chance to do so, he grabbed the opportunity.
Erdogan though, was not ready for that:
Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal , according to one
official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the
necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of
northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned , the official said.
The call ended with Trump repeating to Erdogan that the U.S. would pull out , but
offering no specifics on how it would be done, the officials said.
Erdogan had planned to only occupy a 10 miles deep strip along the Syrian-Turkish
border. Some 15,000 Turkish controlled 'Syrian rebels' stand ready for that. He would need
some 50-100,000 troops to occupy all of east Syria northward of the Euphrates. It would be a
hostile occupation among well armed Kurds who would oppose it and an Arab population that is
not exactly friendly towards a neo-Ottoman Turkey.
"We had decided last week to launch a military incursion... east of the Euphrates river,"
he said in a speech in Istanbul. "Our phone call with President Trump, along with contacts
between our diplomats and security officials and statements by the United States, have led
us to wait a little longer.
"We have postponed our military operation against the east of the Euphrates river until
we see on the ground the result of America's decision to withdraw from Syria."
The Turkish president said, however, that this was not an "open-ended waiting
period".
Any larger occupation of northeast Syria would create a serious mess for Turkey. Its
army can do it, but it would cost a lot of casualties and financial resources. Turkey will
hold local government election in March and Erdogan does not want any negative headlines. He
will invade, but only if Syria and Russia fail to get the Kurds under control.
Unfortunately the leaders of the anarcho-marxist PKK/YPK in Syria have still not learned
their lesson. They make the same demands to Damascus that were already rejected when similar
demands were made for Afrin canton before Turkey invaded and destroyed it.
YPG delegation was flown in to Mezzeh yday. Negos were inconclusive because they just
repeated their usual line of "SAA protects the border, we control the rest." No army allows
someone else allied with an enemy to control its rear and its supply lines. +
+ The YPG leadership is still stuck in its pro-Western rut. It needs to be purged before
any deal can be made with Damascus. Their present track will just lead to another Afrin,
then another, then another. Thousands of brave YPG/YPJ fighters will have died for nothing.
#Breakingnews: Private sources : President Bashar al Assad has rejected the Kurdish
proposal while Turkey is gathering forces (Euphrates Shield et al) to attack the Kurdish
controlled area north of #Syria. #Russia seems holding back president Erdogan for a while.
A lot of pressure
It is not (only) Russia that is holding Erdogan back. As seen above he has serious
concerns about such an operation. Moreover, he does not have enough troops yet and the U.S.
troops have not yet changed their pattern. As of today they still patrolled on the Turkish
border and yesterday new U.S. war material was
still coming in from Iraq. Erdogan does not dare to attack U.S. troops.
He will most likely want to avoid any additional military involvement in Syria. If
Damascus and Moscow can get the PKK under control, Ankara will be satisfied.
Besides the presence of 4,000 to 5,000 U.S. troops and contractors in northeast Syria
there also a contingent of 1,100 French troops and an unknown number of British forces.
France for now says
it wants to stay to finish the fight against the Islamic State enclave along the
Euphrates.
But France does not have the capability to sustain those forces without U.S. support.
Syria and Russia could ask Macron to put them under their command to finish the fight against
ISIS, but it is doubtful that President Macron would agree to that. It is more likely that he
will agree to a handover of their position to Russian, Syrian or even Iraqi or Iranian
forces. Those forces can then finish the fight.
Posted by b on December 21, 2018 at 01:09 PM |
Permalink
Comments
next page " Some of the conclusions toward the end of this article don't entirely
make sense to me. Trump is withdrawing 2000-4000 US troops. Why does it follow that their
absence would create a space requiring 50000 Turkish troops to fill? I don't see how
occupation of the entire eastern would be under consideration at all.
As far as IS is concerned, their defeat will be "enduring" when their sponsors stop paying
them, first of all.
Mattis comes across to me as a psycho case of a suppressed faggot who has spent his life
trying to disprove and conceal the blatantly obvious. There we go...fairly succinct analysis.
More importantly, Mattis, known to some by the nickname of "Mad Dog," has shown a callous
disregard for human life, particularly civilians, as evidenced by his behavior leading
marines in Iraq, comments he made about enjoying fighting in Afghanistan because "it's fun
to shoot some people. You know, it's a hell of a hoot," and myriad other problems.
...
While reporting from inside Fallujah during that siege, I personally witnessed women,
children, elderly people and ambulances being targeted by US snipers under Mattis' command.
Needless to say, all of these are war crimes.
For at least two decades, the Department of Defense has explicitly defined its mission on
its website as providing "the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security
of our country." But earlier this year, it quietly changed that statement, perhaps suggesting
a more ominous approach to national security.
...
The Pentagon's official website now defines its mission this way: "The mission of the
Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our
country and sustain American influence abroad."
At least Mattis is more honest than most of his fellow psychopath war criminals.
If the AP account is factually accurate (i.e. leaving aside the tendentious pro-imperial,
pro-war editorializing), then it's funny how fast Erdogan goes from "What are you doing here?
Why don't you leave?" to "I didn't mean now!" He was probably angling for something else and
didn't really want US withdrawal.
As for the French, what a contemptible squeak from a government on the ropes trying to
look tough.
Never Mind the Bollocks , Dec 21, 2018 1:48:37 PM |
link
'The Pentagon's official website now defines its mission this way: "The mission of the
Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our
country and sustain American influence abroad."'
I wonder whether, perchance, the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief should have been
consulted about that. Traditionally, US Presidents have had some considerable say in defining
the country's foreign policy.
Although one could interpret the change as being wholly in tune with Mr Trump's overriding
policy of transparent honesty. After all, as long ago as 1900 - on the evidence of Marin
Major-General Smedley Butler - we know that the US armed forces were used almost exclusively
to promote American interests abroad. Maybe it's just refreshingly open to admit it at
last.
"Trump stunned his Cabinet, lawmakers and much of the world with the move by rejecting the
advice of his top aides..."
Please remind me: who was elected in 2016 - Mr Trump, or "his top aides"?
When David Ignatius reported that Mattis's bedtime reading was Marcus Aurelius in the
original Latin, who was responsible for the mistake? (Marcus Aurelius wrote in Greek.)
Ignatius, an aide of Mattis's, or Mattis himself?
"While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary
forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria
where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said".
Splendid! Let them hand it back to the lawfully elected democratic government of Syria,
then.
'"We had decided last week to launch a military incursion... east of the Euphrates river," he
said in a speech in Istanbul'.
So much for the UN Charter, then. Anyone who wants to can invade any other country and
take over as much of its territory as he wants to - as long as Washington agrees. But, as Saddam Hussein could testify if he were still alive, it would be sensible to get
such consent in writing.
thanks b... who replaces the war criminal mattis? and when does any american get charged in
the hague for the countless wars they start? how long do we have to wait for this to happen?
the fact he changed the wording is at least more honest, so i give him credit for that... he
could have said 'we are the worlds policeman, and we will continue to be the worlds policeman
too' which would have been equally appropriate...
one thing i do like about trump is his ability to surprise... he could have done this
earlier in his term - pull out of syria - but i guess he was waiting to see how things
went... as it stands i think the knifes are out for trump big time now, and i suspect he is
not going to last as president.. someone else mentioned this on the previous thread, and i
agree with that assessment..
at some point in the next month, it is going to look different if USA follows thru with
the commanders new position... meanwhile Russia has to continue to keep turkey on a leash and
Syria, Russia and Iran have to continue to work at regaining the area east of the Euphrates
as this unfolds... the leadership in France at this point are loony... the smart thing for
them would be to leave or hand it over to syria/ russia...
Macron's forces are illegally present too. Assad would have to request their presence, but I
really doubt he will given the harm France has done to Syria over the past 7 years. Word is
SAA's Tiger Forces will get sent East of Euphrates; when is now the question.
Rolling-back the Outlaw US Empire's overseas troop deployments and shuttering their bases
is something I've argued for since I was honorably discharged in 1985, with the monies turned
to desperate domestic needs -- the financial statement may declare the USA the world's richest
nation, but reality tells a very different story. That reality got Trump elected. The
haphazard, laissez-faire, unplanned structural nature of the USA's economy is in no way
prepared for the rising technological revolution, which is in stark contrast to China and
Russia's plans. The most important message Putin delivered in his annual meeting yesterday
was about the whys and hows of changing the structure of Russia's economy:
"I have said it on numerous occasions, and I will repeat it today. We need a breakthrough.
We need to transition to a new technological paradigm. Without it, the country has no
future . This is a matter of principle, and we have to be clear on this....
" Healthcare, education, research and human capital come first, since without them
there is no way a breakthrough can be achieved . The second vector deals with
manufacturing and the economy. Of course, everything is related to the economy, including the
first part. But the second part is directly linked to the economy, since it deals with the
digital economy, robotics, etc. I have already mentioned infrastructure....
"But we will not be able to achieve the GDP growth rates necessary for this breakthrough
unless the structure of the economy is changed. This is what the national projects are aimed
at, and why such enormous funds will be invested, which I have already said – to
change the structure and build an innovation-based economy . The Government is counting
on this, because if this happens, and we should all work towards this, then the growth rates
will increase and there will be other opportunities for development." [My Emphasis]
200 million residents of the USA--2/3s of the populous--also need a breakthrough, which is
why the Green New Deal has such
widespread support : "The survey results show overwhelming support for the Green New
Deal, with 81% of registered voters saying they either 'strongly support' (40%) or 'somewhat
support' (41%) this plan." IMO, domestic political pressure generally supports Trump's MAGA,
but the monies need to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is from the Outlaw US Empire
part of the USA.
One's got to worry about who will replace Mad Dog Mattis after February 28 next year. It
would seem that whoever succeeds Mattis will be another former general, likely to share his
views on maintaining and increasing US forces in Syria, Iraq and other parts of western Asia
where they're despised by the local people, and perhaps not averse to sounding out good ol'
Erik Prince to fill the vacancies left when US troops start leaving.
Tom Welsh. It's my understanding that the Constitution states that foreign policy IS the job
of the President. This Congress doesn't seem to have gotten the memo and though strictly a
legislative body, have engaged in some pretty spectacular over reach.
The Constitution also puts an elected civilian (the President) in charge of the armed forces
but put the power to declare war firmly in the hands of Congress.
The 1973 War Powers act has obscured this division of power. The President can order troops
anywhere for a short time but must get an Authorization for Military Force from Congress.
However, this is supposed to only in the case of attack or imminent danger, hardly the case
in the ME.
Time limits on AFMF are often ignored and Congressional! purse strings almost never limit
(exception: at the end of Viet Nam Congress was about to cut funding) any and all military
adventurism.
@ karlof1 14 Healthcare, education, research and human capital come first, since without them there is
no way a breakthrough can be achieved.
It would seem to me that if US politicians really cared about their job performance they
would be working more on your "human capital" and less on warfare and Russian collusion. But
there's no money in that, so they don't. So much for "democracy." Here's a recent article on
a US achieved "breakthrough," in a negative sense that is.
WaPo, Nov 29
Life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2017, the government said Thursday
in a bleak series of reports that showed a nation still in the grip of escalating drug and
suicide crises.
The data continued the longest sustained decline in expected life span at birth in a
century, an appalling performance not seen in the United States since 1915 through 1918.
That four-year period included World War I and a flu pandemic that killed 675,000 people in
the United States and perhaps 50 million worldwide.
Public health and demographic experts reacted with alarm to the release of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention's annual statistics, which are considered a reliable
barometer of a society's health. In most developed nations, life expectancy has marched
steadily upward for decades. . .
here
Mattis could not, would not accept responsibility for the misappropriated 21 trillion dollars
at HIS defence department. Kick him out. He was always a moron and demonstrated his arrogant
dismissal of the elected president almost every day. $21 trillion buys a lot of MAGA.
Kurdish population in Syria is only 5% whereas the land they now control is 30% of the
country thanks to the democratic EUSA nations?
They can no longer feed the ISIS inmates (they'll end up in France or Germany or elsewhere
undertaking new projects?) since Khashoggi case (or Mr. Erdogan who caught the Saudis by
their balls) made Saudis quit financing the YPG. Almost all ISIS inmates left in Syria are
from abroad (they had been released from Libyan, Afghan, Iraqi prisons en mass at the
beginning of the war and are ready for relocation?
Will the globalists controlled China arrive to rebuild what the US demolitionmen destroyed
in Syria?
Who founded (USrael?) ISIS and made them lose water and oil rich territories in Syria to
the PKK/YPG/SDF and what are they planning to do now?
It'd be funny if Trump appointed Tulsi Gabbard to the post of DefSec.
I don't know much about her except that she's definitely very cute and probably isn't a
pushover. If the glowing praise of her MoA fans is any guide then she'd do a better job than
any recent appointment to the role and would then become a shoe-in for POTUS. If that came to
pass then 'Hillary Who?' would become part of America's Permanent Lexicon.
Thanks for your reply! Yes, the financialization and industrial hollowing-out of the USA's
economy renders following the path being broken by Russia/China very difficult, but the
projected outcome will be dire if the economy isn't radically restructured and the fake
economists and their financial predators aren't driven from the Temple by modern
Tribunes.
Meanwhile, shrouded by the Trump/Mattis circus,
Turkey & Iran held an "historic summit" that likely had an impact on Trump's decision
as everywhere he looks his previous foreign policy choices driven by his neocon advisors are
mostly backfiring.
The language of the US Constitution gives the President the power to make treaties and
choose Ambassadors, in consultation with and with the consent (2/3 majority) of the Senate.
Also, President is Commander-in-Chief of the military. This includes state militias if
formed. He also receives political figures from abroad.
Like so much else in the US Constitution, there has been creepy or 'necessary' or when
it's handy mission creep in regard to these delineated functions.
But more to the point, the US is and has long been a serial de facto repudiator of the US
Constitution and of International law. 'Let us discuss the fine points of law pertaining to
the repeated launching of wars of aggression on the basis of lies.'
Forgive the levity but here's Hillary's theme song.
Oh yes I'm the great pretender (ooh ooh)
Pretending that I'm doing well (ooh ooh)
My need is such I pretend too much
I'm lonely but no one can tell.
Oh yes I'm the great pretender (ooh ooh)
Adrift in a world of my own (ooh ooh)
I play the game but to my real shame
You've left me to dream all alone.
Too real is this feeling of make believe
Too real when I feel what my heart can't conceal
Ooh ooh yes I'm the great pretender (ooh ooh)
Just laughing and gay like a clown (ooh ooh)
I seem to be what I'm not (you see)
I'm wearing my heart like a crown
Pretending that I'm still around.
(stiill a rounnd)
If the U.S. withdraws its forces from NE Syria who will control the air space. That will
likely determine who controls the territory in the future. I don't think the Kurds have an
airforce.
mls
financial matters , Dec 21, 2018 4:13:46 PM |
link
karlof1 @ 14
"""But we will not be able to achieve the GDP growth rates necessary for this breakthrough
unless the structure of the economy is changed. This is what the national projects are aimed
at, and why such enormous funds will be invested, which I have already said – to change
the structure and build an innovation-based economy. The Government is counting on this,
because if this happens, and we should all work towards this, then the growth rates will
increase and there will be other opportunities for development."""
Similar sentiments are expressed by Rhiana Gunn-Wright.
After Sanders lost the Democratic primary in 2016 a group called 'Brand New Congress'
formed to carry on his ideas. This morphed into 'Justice Democrats' which helped
Ocasio-Cortez get elected. She is serving as a lightning rod giving the Green New Deal
popularity.
Rhiana Gunn-Wright is a young energetic and talented policy wonk working for 'New
Consensus' which is a spin off of the 'Justice Democrats'.
She is being tasked with forming policy for the Green New Deal.
'Again, the GND is not just climate policy. It's about transforming the economy, lifting
up the poor and middle class, and creating a more muscular, active public sector.
The GND "opens an opportunity to renegotiate power relationships between the public
sector, the private sector, and the people," says Gunn-Wright. "We are interested in
solutions that create more democratic structures in our economy.'
$21 Trillion + "interests abroad" DoD mission creep
>>
Silicon Valley hot air equity ($150,000 starting salaries for fresh graduates) on cash flow
only digital assetts
+ offshore oligarch accounts (kkr et al)
I found it helpful to take stock of reported conditions surrounding the troops out
move:
* ksa reportedly going bankrupt
* ksa reneges on golden glow globe sword dance MIC mou-s
* failed israeli missile attempt to start wwiii & ensuing s300 reinforcements
* kashoggi and related muslim brotherhood entanglements
* clinton foundation in DC "hearings" censored by msm
* continued censorship of Awan bros Blackberry scandal (espionage?)
* Cricket hero Khan batting for Pakistan
* Huawei affair
* Bibi & family corruption scandal
Trump has a keen eye for ratings, and surely knows giving the deplorables (private
contractors, self employeds etc) trying to rub two pennies together gasoline under $3/gallon
in the holiday season will mean much more to the public than Cnn Russiagate drivel working
people have no time for anyway. Keeping armed forces rank and file happy and re purposing for
disaster relief would be a good move.
Karlof1 is correct to make the most of the narrative. Glad b is on it. Hope troops arent
cleared for nuclear Armeggedon!
@mls The US currently does not control Syrian airspace. The Russians do, ever since they
switched from using the existing old Syrian S200 to the current advanced model S300, after
the downing of their plane by the Israeli interference.
This was probably another factor that made operating in Syria increasingly problematic and
handicapped: options of 'punishing Assad' or bombing mobile Iranian units were limited if
they didn't want to coordinate with the Russians.
The Syrians now have to amass a large contingent to 'control' the Kurdish area; likely the
Russians will be go-between to lower Kurdish demands as well as placate the SAA and achieve
some kind of tense co-existence which can keep Turkey satisfied.
Interesting to see how Syria will handle both wanting to mop up Idlib as well as re-establish
control over the North-East and its oil wells.
I read that Trump did not inform Netanyahu of the USA's Syria 'withdrawal' until about an
hour before it was made public via tweet. Five mins! according to another article. Also, that
Trump did discuss it with B.N. several days before (Haaretz), that sounded like a smoothing
over. Another article claimed that it was Pompeo who clued in Israel a short while before. So
who knows?
Right from the first time they met, Bibi was terrified of Trump, though I could not find
one telling vid. I saw.
Feb. 15 2017.
Trump today said that he is keeping his options open about how best to reach a peaceful
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation but urged Israel to hold back on settlement
building in occupied territories.
President Trump veered from years of U.S. policy in the Middle East by backing off the
"two-state solution," as the only path to peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
One article stated that Macron and Merkel learnt of the 'withdrawal' from the media! I
have noted that Macron is always very 'late' and 'behind the times' as far as the US is
concerned, obviously the F 'info' services have no clue, or he isn't kept informed, etc.
Not that there will be consequent 'fall-out' from either, for the moment. (Israel can only
go along, and the EU has more serious stuff on its plate.)
Yes, it's dispiriting, but not surprising that the anti-war "Left" movement has almost
totally dissolved following their failure to prevent the Iraq war. As a deeply cynical person
I'm certain that Hillary and the Clintonites worked behind the scenes in the DNC to undermine
the Anti-war movement in expectation of her eventual 2008 & 2016 runs, since she and Bill
supported the Iraq war and were no shrinking violets when it came to the use of military
force in furtherance of their foreign policy goals. The consequence of destroying the
Anti-war movement with the Democratic Party is that they have become a defacto Pro-war party
even in situations where the use of the military is blatantly illegal, futile and against the
National interest (since there is no organized Anti-war movement articulating why they should
not go to war/use military force to stand against the Military Industrial Complex that is
constantly advocating for more war). Hilariously, by becoming a Pro-war Party when the
American people are increasingly tired of constant warfare the Democratic Party lost the 2016
election to a mildly anti-war Trump, who will most likely be re-elected (unless he is
impeached or assassinated). In the long-term, unless the DNC faces up to the 30 years of
disastrous Clinton mismanagement and corruption and cleans house, I could certainty see the
Democratic Party collapsing over the next 15 years just like how the Labour Party in the UK
is still struggling with the legacy of Tony Blair.
What's really galling to me though is watching all these so called "liberals" (Cher, Beth
Midler, Rachael "Mad Cow" Maddow & Mia Farrow) whine about how the US should never leave
Syria and stay there indefinitely; Are they or their children going to be fighting this war?
Who gave the US such authority take seize parts of Syria? What exactly is the benefit to the
US & her people in doing all of this? How many hundreds of thousands people (mostly
Syrians) need to die for this ill-defined goal of spiting Syria & Russia? Just like the
destruction of the Anti-war left in the Democratic Party had long term consequences, people
will remember how Hollywood liberals behaved like jabbering, ignorant, warmongering
ideologues during this period of US decline and it will cause profound damage to them and
their professed causes.
Nice thoughts, but I don't think you have the time.
"Worst December since the great depression"
Just look at the pictures (charts), and scroll down.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-21/fear-reaches-most-extreme-ever-traders-see-panic-air
....
Trump has a tactic of "giving people what they ask for" (eg Jerusalem). Just to break a
deadlock. This Syria gambit seems to be something of the same as Erdogan now gets what he has
been asking for - and finds he doesn't want it yet.
I still think that there will be a continued US presence in Syria, concentrated around the
Oil sources. The Agricultural lands further north were owned by "Arabic", Christian, Yadizi
and other various tribes and ethnies. The Kurds only made up a small portion.
One reason that Trump may have decided to throw the Kurds to the wolves, is that they were
overstretched, and not motivated enough to continue to be cannon fodder for Uncle Sam. The
SDF (Which incorporates some turncoat ISIS members, which partly explains why there has only
been slow "progress" against the last ISIS enclave in Eastern Syria, brother against
ex-brother), also contains foreign mercenaries from various sources. What they will "demand"
is open to question. The tribal forces in the SAA who are directly opposite contain members
of the Shaitah, who saw 700 of their women and children massacred by ISIS. They may want
their own land back too, as well as "payback".
The other reason for Trump to act now is that Flynn has been given three months in which
to change his guilty "plea". After which, Mueller will HAVE TO provide proof, and not just
accusations and people that have been blackmailed into "plea deals". Trump doesn't have too
much time left for subtle tweet-tweets before the Dems arrive. etc (big topic by itself)
.... By the way, OT; Butina was really "brain-washed". 67 days in solitary confinement
with all the recognised means of brainwashing used on her. Assault (including sexual) sleep
deprivation, continued stress (including randomly timed "strip searches") probably lighting
either permanently on or randomly used to destroy time awareness. There are other methods to
be included, and at a "key" break point, a "counsellor/handler will whisper sweet nothings in
hear ear to control her way of thinking ( I am NOT a specialist in Brainwashing, but the
outline of what she suffered, means that she will always repeat what she has been told to
say.) Real Brainwashing from the cold war era .
b's statement regarding Turkey: "Its army can do it, but it would cost a lot of casualties
and financial resources."
During the entire war, Turkey's army has done not so much and not so well. Manbij, Afrin,
and where else? Well before the US presence with bases, the Turks could not hold their border
region from the Kurds.
They cannot impact deep anywhere. Their AF is not even as effective as Syria's, yet it is
a much better, more advanced arm of the military. It's special forces?
They are used to doing what NATO and US troops do. They murder civilians and massacre
opposition. They did little against ISIS which was a very fierce, mobile and effective
military.
They do have logistical advantage and can move heavy weapons for a siege. But they are a
set piece land force.
The Kurds also are quite overrated.
Erdogan knows that the notion of him holding the East is a pipedream. His FSA allies are
the weakest lot in Syria.
His real fighters are those in Idlib, al Nusra and the Uyghurs.
If he intends to hold land the US has marked out in the North-east and East, he will have
to move the headchoppers.
The Russians will annihilate them if they cross the zones in Idlib.
With the US vacuum the Syrians, Hezbollah, Quds, Iranian militias and the Russians will
complete the war.
The French and Brits say they are staying. They should write their Last Will letters. They
will be shot out of the sky and incinerated on the ground. Folly.
The pullouts from Syria and Afghanistan are severe blows to NATO as hegemonic shock
troops.
This time next year we will hear and see how Russia won and NATO is gone from Eurasia.
This is also an object lesson to those nations on Russia's periphery who are flirting with
the US, EU and NATO. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan will have to recalculate.
I think we will see many more updates such as this one, showing us who's pushing back,
who's wavering, and who's simply blowing hot air. I could wish for better sources of the back
story than AP and Reuters, but we must wait for better analysis I think. I'm sure I'll see it
here first - thanks for your continued vigilance.
Meanwhile my guesses are that Trump holds the longest knife and will prevail in this
course. And that Erdogan is not faltering as the Reuters report implies, but is simply
letting players and forces adjust to the new situation. And that, regardless of the details
on the ground, the US flag has been struck in Syria, irreversibly. This is a geopolitical
milestone, and everything now changes from this.
@35 It has been my understanding that while the Russian forces have stepped up their air
defense systems the Americans still fly freely to the north-east of the Euphrates and have
not hesitated to attack SAA forces who came close to their proxies on the ground, as well as
attacking the SAA when they moved toward the U.S. base at al-Tanf. If the U.S. really does
evacuate their troops it will be interesting to see if they discontinue their air movements
over the eastern bank of the Euphrates. mls
Almost all ISIS inmates left in Syria are from abroad (they had been released from Libyan,
Afghan, Iraqi prisons en mass at the beginning of the war and are ready for relocation?
Who founded (USrael?) ISIS and made them lose water and oil rich territories in Syria to
the PKK/YPG/SDF and what are they planning to do now?
@ Kadath 39
As respects Rachel Mad Cow,MSNBC has been reading from the neo-con playbook for several years
now. Pre-Iraq War,Chris Matthews was vehemently against it, but in my limited recent
viewership they are silent on Syria in general. They did however have a one hour special by
Richard Engle which was essentially an hour of showing the carnage and saying "look what
Assad did". It was even more absurd than Fox's islamaphobic specials they ran a few times.
Truly pathetic and it feels like MSNBC is hewing to the HRC model "of no one can criticize me
fro the right on "national security".
my comment was chopped off... first time i can recall ew writing on foreign policy! at any
rate, skip the ew comment section, as the folks at ew can completely in denial about the role
the democrats have played in bringing the usa to this point in time... read @35 kadath post
for greater clarity on that...
Too many "old men who think in terms of nation states and peoples. There are no nations.
There are no peoples. There is only the Federal Reserve, the BIS, IMF, WB, WTO and an
entourage of multinational corporations all inextricably inter associated." as redux of Ned
Beatty's soliloquy from the film Network.
These pesky wars, as one front of many fronts, are getting in the way of NWO timing. The
world's major central banks are now involved in quantitative tightening and much of the
liquidity that was handed out as loans will now disappear and the debt trap will now be
sprung on many 'nation states' as it was in Greece. Turkey's major industries owe about 300
Billion. This while the Lira drops ever lower in relation to the Fed Reserve Note,
euphemistically the USD, and will be hard pressed to pay back the less abundant, higher
valued amounts at the higher interest rates of the FRN's borrowed. War, with very real
deaths, continues but on another front and Trump as the front figure is the main conductor of
this coming war.
When David Ignatius reported that Mattis's bedtime reading was Marcus Aurelius in the
original Latin, who was responsible for the mistake? (Marcus Aurelius wrote in Greek.)
Ignatius, an aide of Mattis's, or Mattis himself?
Posted by: lysias | Dec 21, 2018 1:54:56 PM | 9
Explanation from an aide of Mattis: the General purchased the volume while visiting Latin
America, so he always assumed that it is in Latin.
What theis "withdrawal" is about....To continue causing turmoil in Syria so as to impede its
rebuilt and return to peaceful normal life...This is why Israel has not said a word....
I have been away in the Scottish wilderness for a while, cut off from everything, so it with
somewhat jaded joy that I come back to stunning news from this unfailingly brilliant place to
hear the latest (US getting out of Syria, Mattis out, Macron on fire, Britain in an
existential crisis the like of which I have neither seen nor read about).
Like a schoolkid who has absented themselves I venture back into the classroom to take my
little seat, all the while carrying with me audio of howling winds and the low whistle of a
friend who came to visit, an Irish instrument that so resembles native American flutes. In
this Highland cabin I filled the stove with ash and oak and beech, listened to the haunting
sound of the low whistle and drank whisky as I watched the snow drift down.
The SDF (Which incorporates some turncoat ISIS members, which partly explains why there has
only been slow "progress" against the last ISIS enclave in Eastern Syria, brother against
ex-brother), also contains foreign mercenaries from various sources.
Josh on #35 hints at an explanation for Trumps action which is confirmed by a romanian
military expert in the article http://www.voltairenet.org/article204433.html
Assuming that analysis is correct, Trumps military associates like Mattis must have known but
was apparently more willing to risk american casualties.
So the past 2 years of bombing and support for bombing and special forces operations in
Syria, Yemen, Africa, Afghanistan and of course the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians in
Israel is blamed on Trumps aids, all of whom he hired.
Whenever something positive comes out (and Trump has said he was done in Syria before only
to be followed later by a barrage of missiles due to outrage over the poor babies killed in
the CW attack blamed on Assad) its presented as Trump heroically goes against his aids advice
and does right.
This is a common theme in MSM and almost all of the alt media now. Trumps swamp included
Bolton, Barr, Devos, Pompeo, Mnuchkin, Acosta, Haspel, Ross, Mulvaney, Kushner, Pruit,
Mattis. Blame them instead of the guy who hired them and has authority over them.
Right.
I have been away in the Scottish wilderness for a while, cut off from everything,
Posted by: Lochearn | Dec 21, 2018 6:03:22 PM | 51
I once spent a week in Glen Lyon which is not cut off from anything, there is a paved road
(one-lane for two way traffic, only in Scotland!) and Royal Mail operated, but these days
young people complain when there is no cell phone reception, there was a land line but our
niece was could not send any pics and texts to her boyfriend. Thus she very eagerly joined me
for a hike and after ascending 1000 m and getting the view of Loch Tay she immediately texted
etc. But something is brewing outside quiet glens: [video of parliamentary session] The
defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, says the UK will have 3,500 service personnel on standby
'to support any government department on any contingencies they may need'
Watch the situation, Lochearn, and if needed, run back to the hills.
Thanks for your reply with its post-2016 info! I returned to following domestic happenings
a few months prior to the 2018 election and was surprised by the gumption of the new Freshman
class. There was lots of negative speculation about how AOC would become a sellout, but I'm
impressed and added her twitter to my ever lengthening list. The first 2020 polls have
appeared with the narrative being Biden over washed up Sanders, but the reality is the
opposite. Wife and I had a dinner table discussion about that and related matters last night
from the frame of Media Truth from Putin's meeting I posted. There's an ideological divide
within the USA; but as AOC notes in this very informative* twitter
thread :
"People are starting to realize our issues aren't left and right, but top and bottom.
"And the just solutions will come from the bottom-up."
*--Informative due to the immoral hatred revealed, which unfortunately validates my
references to Monopoly philosophy and Zerosumism. Scrooge was tame in comparison.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 21, 2018 5:51:32 PM | 49
Explanation from an aide of Mattis: the General purchased the volume while visiting
Latin America, so he always assumed that it is in Latin.
Or in Latin American...
And it wasn't bedtime reading but bathroom reading.
Fortunately, the stock markets are not the economy. Trump campaigned on MAGA; the Green
New Deal makes MAGA possible and as the polling I linked to shows is popular across political
lines--the people know something must be done. Currently, it's the D Party Old Guard standing
in the way doing R Party work. When it comes to the traditional definitions of national
security and national interest, Trump was correct to say MAGA is a matter of national
security. Too many Trillions have already been wasted, and we within the USA cannot afford
any more of those mistakes from the past as the margin for success gets thinner daily. When I
compare the directions of China, Russia and USA, the former two are rising by attaining their
planned national goals, while the USA drops downward thanks to directionless policy
that only supports the greed of the greedy. I know its much better for an individual to be a
poor worker in China than a poor worker in the state of Georgia and too many other
places--very few opportunities and almost no social support very similar to the Great
Depression; but nowadays, you can't even hop a freight to go somewhere else as was possible
in the '30s.
Apparently, Mattis bought the book for the illustrations.
Latin America speaks Spanish and Portuguese not Latin American, which is not a
language.
Plus, there are secondary languages of indigenous people, and tertiary languages like German
and Italian, Japanese and Chinese as well as English.
From the "story" about Mattis, I think it is laughable. He pretended his whole life to be
a Patton.
Read their career stories and it is a joke that Mattis had four-stars, as did Patton.
"UK government refuses to release the documents on its 'counter-disinformation' programme
linked to the Integrity Initiative. Because (don't laugh now), it could 'undermine the
programme's effectiveness'."
Where is the evidence of widespread support for a green new deal as pushed by a couple of
people here. A poll of 966 people sorted by whether or not they are voters does not mean
there is widespread support. As in most polls claiming whatever we do not know the questions
that were asked or how they were framed. Thus they could have said "would you be for a new
green deal if it energized the economy bringing riches to all and extremely cheap rates on
power would you be for it." Until we know the full extent of this poll it's a nothing burger
pushing an agenda.
@ financial matters # 33 with the link to the Green New Deal....thanks
The problem with the GND is that it does not seem to address the underlying fact that
private finance makes all investment decisions. If they evolve to understand that, they can
do all they want if it is within the public government plans for investment.
If the government controlled finance instead of the private folk I would expect there to
be public input to/(control over) investment decisions.....just like the GND folks are
pushing for but in a more comprehensive context and manner.
The only reading generals do is Macchhiavelli, Von Clausewitz and Superman
O yeah -- and the bible, these days.
Posted by: bjd | Dec 21, 2018 7:42:17 PM | 60
A general slurps macchiato while reading The Prince of Niccolò
Machiavelli.
In the history of my country there is a nice episode when one of the main generals was
rousing the units before the critical battle that actually went well "In loco, spes in
virtute, salus in victoria" - Here, the (only) hope (lies) in bravery, salvation in victory,
which quotes Ceasar's De Bello Gallico. . Sadly, while the battle was brilliant, the
war was not. Nevertheless, I would recommend Ceasar.
Ceasar was victorious, so he should be balanced with History of the Peloponnesian
War of Thucidites. A terrible was in which one side lost terribly, while the other
succumbed to hubris, imposed painful domination on all and sundry to be irreversibly defeated
one generation after. Woe to the defeated, but the victors should be careful too.
The story of "Woe to the defeated", Vae victis , is interested too. Romans were
treated mercilessly by victorious (unmitigated?) Gauls, but then see De Bello Gallico
above.
Five unforgettable quotes by the killer, James Mattis (He will be missed?):
>1. 'It's quite fun to shoot them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot
some people.'
>2. 'There are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.'
>3. 'I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in
my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all.'
>4. 'Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.'
>5. 'There are some people who think you have to hate them in order to shoot them. I
don't think you do.'. . .
here
I am sure getting tired of entering my personal info each time I post a comment because the
remember doesn't work...
@ karlof1 with
"
"UK government refuses to release the documents on its 'counter-disinformation' programme
linked to the Integrity Initiative. Because (don't laugh now), it could 'undermine the
programme's effectiveness'."
"
They are lying through there teeth. The real problem for them is that some could end up in
jail, and rightfully so. We can only hope that they take the City of London down with
them.
What is their long term plan for containing the IntegrityNOTInitiative scandal? The house
of cards seems to be falling and now is when we hope that the losers love their children
enough to not takes us to extinction with their pride.
It appears more people are aware of such a threat as
this article notes . Pelosi's unfortunately a whore of the sort needing pasteurization,
along with Feinstein.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 21, 2018 9:04:06 PM | 66 Five unforgettable quotes by the killer, James Mattis ...
Yep, the influence of Marcus Aurelius is all over him. Through and through.
True philosopher general indeed.
The problem with the GND being discussed here is in the Green. Any New Deal that starts with
a false premise and bad science is a bad idea IMO.
That said, a New Deal that incorporates Ellen Browns and Edison/Fords ideas on public
financing I am all for. Goals should be universal health care, guaranteed income and housing,
vast infrastructure projects and alternative energy development. The latter two should be
green in the sense of nonpolluting (Co2 is not a pollutant). Jobs are fine but with
automation, AI, and robotics lets face it, a world where most people dont work except as a
hobby or to live better than others is coming, as my old science teacher predicted with envy
over 50 years ago. The neomalthusians and transhumanists have other ideas.
I would also devote massive resources for researching the safety of GMO , vaccines and
medicines as well as upgrading climate monitoring and climate research since climate does
change and we have so little understanding of it. Climate measurements are indadequate
(number of weather stations in US have dropped by a factor of 3 since climate became a thing
and quality is a key concern. This research needs to be free of influence from parties having
an agenda (political and financial). Good luck with that.
Mattis is a coward, he knows the American efforts in Syria has failed, and will go nowhere.
So for him this was a great excuse and a good uportunity to resign and not share the blame
for failure of his past advise and insistence to continue a lost effort. Now all the blames
for loosing in Syria will go to Trump. The blame game has already started coming out of MSM
and the DC swamp (you read sewer).
@ pft will the great follow on the the GND proposal
I want to add a data point to the universal health care initiative.
Because we are a society wedded to the profit motive we put it between the client and the
health care provider and worse only promote "therapies" that make a profit. Let me provide my
personal proof of that statement.
This week, after a 12 year journey, I can state that I have healed myself (with help) from
a traumatic brain injury using neurofeedback. Neurofeedback in a non-drug, non-invasive EEG
based therapy based on the mental health brain paradigm of dis-regulated neural networks. The
world of Big Pharma does not want to see neurofeedback advance because it will eliminate most
of them.
Some on MoA have read me writing about this before and I will do so more in some future
Open Thread.....when the dust settles a bit.
@1 Isn't it obvious? US forces are there to support the Kurdish forces. Training, supplying,
and a little moral "stiffening".
But Turkisk forces would go in with the aim of defeating those Kurds, and then suppressing
the local pop in. That requires an order of magnitude more troops.
One think-tanker expects problems with troop morale, which by the way was the killer that
ended the stupid Vietnam War.
Trump's sudden decisions to drawdown troops in Syria and Afghanistan that sparked Mattis'
resignation marked for perhaps the first time in American history the departure of a
defense secretary in protest and adds to the overall unease that remains, experts said.
"I think it adds to a feeling that in some sense the wheels are beginning to come off of
American foreign policy and national security policy," said John Hannah, a senior counselor
at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute
on foreign policy and national security in Washington.
Hannah said he thinks the Mattis resignation will inevitably affect troop morale . . . .
here
Tom Cotton is a rabid hawk especially on Iran. If Trump choses him then this will signal
what Trump meant by the next phase of the campaign after he announced a withdrawal
from Syria.
I read General Jack Keane was in the running but he doesn't want the job.
That leaves Lindsey Graham and David Petraeus. Both of these might be willing to take the
job, but I see Trump picking Petraeus over Graham, although Graham just visited the troops in
Afghanistan; maybe he's sending a subtle hint to Trump.
If it's Cotton, we should brace ourselves for escalation with Iran.
Well there are 50K Al Nusra fighters in Idlib that Russia and Syria want out of there and
Turkey is protecting. Maybe they will be on the move soon to deal with the Kurds in the NE
once the US pulls out. US can pretend ignorance and then step back in again under the cover
of stabilizing the region with replacement for the kurds to use against Assad and protect
assets in the NE. Everyone except the Kurds is happy, almost.
Further to your point about MSNBC, I just watched Michael Moore on MSNBC being interviewed
by Ali Velshi and Moore was actually advocating that the troops stay in Syria and blamed
Putin for ordering Trump to do this ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0SP7puk8f8)
- words fail..... Michael Moore, the Anti-Iraq war activist, the Occupy Wall Street advocate,
the Anti-Imperialist, has reached the terminal phase of his Trump Derangement Syndrome. His
irrational hatred of Trump has just driven him to torch all of his prior Anti-War work; to
betray every speech, every millimeter of film he's ever made all because he hates Trump that
much and everything he has previously done can be jettisoned if it furthers this new
goal.
Ugh... Is he doing this all for the money he can glean from the mainstream Media by being
even more extreme than them, was he always this shallow and empty? This is what I just cant
get over, do these jackanapes not understand that their words and behaviours are being
recorded and people will remember it, it will haunt their futures and taint their legacies.
Hating Trump is one thing (there is certainly no shortage of reasons to hate him), but I'm
rethinking my entire interpretation of Moore and his career because of these constant,
irrationally hateful and extreme statements. Michael Moore, Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon,
Rachal Maddow and Stephen Colbert can play to the crowd for now, but once Trump's term ends
people will never be able to take them seriously as public figures again because of all of
their delusional tirades while Trump was in office.
Troop moral today is far different than Vietnam. Reason in no order of importance
1. Well paid volunteer army, well trained with skills transferrable to private sector
2. Limited tour length, long paid breaks between tours
3. Skype/internet access on tours to stay in touch with family firiends
4. Contractors to do much of the dirty work
5. Military glorification at home treats them as heros and plenty of discounts
6. Far fewer casualties
7. Great benefits once the leave miliitary (loans, paid university transferrable)
8. Tax benfits for companies hiring vets helps them in job market
The main negative with fewer troops in Syria or Afghanistan means there are fewer tours
which means less money.
I expect they will be deployed elsewhere. Where is the big question. Like you say, moral
not an issue
Kadath 80 "do these jackanapes not understand that their words and behaviours are being
recorded and people will remember it"
The average person that watches MSM have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to politics.
"His irrational hatred of Trump has just driven him to torch all of his prior Anti-War
work"
Most that make it in politics or entertainment go with the flow - whatever will further their
career. Empty people. I don't know this Michael Moor, but sounds lie he is one of this
type.
People like Lindsey Graham simply cannot comprehend that USA is in fact a demolished country,
with its last leg - the stock market - getting cut off in real time, as we speak. The
implications of American equity markets collapse are momentous. The relentless year-end
selling means that government revenues will be drastically reduced, by at least couple
hundred billion dollars, driving US budget deficit to well in excess of $1.2T in current
fiscal year. And that's in a benign case. If America slips in a recession, and has to resort
to fiscal stimulus, we are talking about $1.5-2T budget shortfall. Add quickly deteriorating
demographics, and "japanisation" of the USA is all but inevitable (and yes, US financial
system is a dead man walking)
Trump, although not the brightest bulb, is infinitely smarter than Grahams, Rubios and
Cottons of the world. He knows that it's much better to withdraw on what looks like own
accord now, than being kicked out in the most disgraceful fashion upon the passage of time.
Or even worse, having your troops marooned in the troubled region without any prospect of
being extricated, unless on the most humiliating terms.
Whether Trump succeeds or fails in returning the troops home is irrelevant at this point.
They are coming home anyway. The only question remaining is not if but when, and how.
Maybe Trump is diversyfing, scaling down in the The Middle East (a lots been accomplished
already) and ramp up efforts in Africa and Latin America to counter BRICS
@87 once and future... first off i want to thank stonebird for there comments on this topic..
solitary confinement is inhumane.. that the usa is keen to use it in all sorts of
circumstances, is a reflection of their abu ghraib, guantanemo mentality... solitary
confinement is more of the same.. in a civilized world it would never be allowed to be
done... but this is more exceptional nation stuff from the exceptional nation and what the
world has come to expect from a country that preaches one thing while practicing something
completely different..
80 kadath... michael moore has really fallen... i was unaware of this and am not tapped
into the usa msm to be able to follow.. in fact, it is so depressing i have no interest in
following much of anything coming out of the usa at this point...
@78 circe.. another name mentioned was this tulsi gabbard from hawaii.. i doubt it very
much... the usa continues to fly way off the rails...
Michael Moore destroyed his credibility when he failed to denounce Obama for not jailing
the Banksters and it's been downhill from there as it's been with so many of his ilk. Another
case of money ruining youthful idealism. Caitlin's on a roll and deserves a much larger audience. The propagandizers have deluded
themselves via their own machinations and are now going mad.
"there also a contingent of 1,100 French troops"... You can hear me laughing after reading this. The French empire was over a long long time ago and they still think that Syria is their
colony. France has been sending French Jihadists for regime change in Syria since 2011 and their
mission has failed since Russia intervened in 2015. France cannot even send troops to Mali - destabilized by Jihadists created by France in
Libya to topple Kadhafi, without the help of the US!!! France is a de-facto vassal state of the US since they decided to joined the NATO central
command under Sarkozy who was bribed by the zionist neocons.
...
US can pretend ignorance and then step back in again under the cover of stabilizing the
region with replacement for the kurds to use against Assad and protect assets in the NE.
Everyone except the Kurds is happy, almost.
Posted by: Pft | Dec 21, 2018 11:19:21 PM | 79
I think you're right. And I hope so, too...
The Yanks should be counting their blessings. I thought it was extraordinarily generous of
Putin to agree with Donald that "the US beat ISIS in Syria" considering how
half-assed/limp-wristed their anti-ISIS actions were in comparison with Russia's 100+ sorties
per day 24/7 for many months.
Imo, if the Yanks dream up another excuse to go back into Syria, Putin will caution against
it and then make sure that none of them get out alive.
Blooming Barricade , Dec 22, 2018 2:07:30 AM |
link
I personally distinguish between Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria and his move to
withdraw partially from Afghanistan. The latter is a step towards ending a brutal, illegal
NATO occupation war of over 17 years. The former is also illegal but the Syrian Kurds (left
wing and largely communist) are likely to be supplanted as counters to "Iran" by fascists
Turkey and Israel (this has been confirmed in reports), so we're moving from tactical NATO
proxies to actual NATO governments seizing Syrian land.
All of that being said, both are policy decisions that should be able to be debated
freely. I can totally see why many on the anti-imperialist left welcome the decision to
withdraw from Syria, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to them. It the US and international
media response has been horrific.
The New York Times and Guardian are basically now neconservative papers indistinguishable from the Wall Steet Journal and Daily Telegraph. Not
a word of dissent is even remotely allowed or involved. The Blob has totally taken over the
entirety of the liberal global establishment which sees Trump's move as "treasonous." Not
looking forward to 2020 when Democrats will run on identical foreign policy platforms to Mitt
Romney.
Not sure if you watched when Michael Moore received the Oscar for Farenheit 9/11. Let's
remember he was addressing the top elite Liberal crowd and got booed. What is it they say
about prophets in their own land? Oh yeah, Jesus said: A prophet is without honor in his
own country.
I actually have some sympathy for Michael Moore. Aside from being a major critic of the
Bush Administration, Michael Moore was also very critical of Obama, and Hillary and was
lambasted by liberal centrists and neolibs. He was considered part of the radical left and
despite the success of his documentaries, he continued to be marginalized and never received
the respect he deserved. In 2015, Moore was supporting Bernie Sanders, but when Bernie was
railroaded, Moore who couldn't see himself voting for a Republican ever, especially a
depraved billionaire whom he rightly viewed as Chaos personified felt that Hillary was the
lesser evil, and from there found the respect that had been denied to him by his own side and
especially after he predicted Hillary was about to lose despite the polls and Michigan,
Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would deny her the Presidency. From the day his prediction
materialized Democrats were in awe of his perception. Since then he exchanged integrity for
their respect. The Michael Moore of 2003 would never criticize military de-escalation.
However, Moore recently released a new documentary Farenheit 11/9 wherein apparently he's
critical of Democrats whom he blames for the rise of Trump.
So don't be too hard on Moore who was an outcast in liberal country for too long. Once
you've earned the respect of your own and the mainstream it's not so easy to speak your truth
anymore. Thanks to Trump and the Dems, Moore has been temporarily altered. But you're right,
he'll look back with regret on this Syria opinion.
I can't stand Trump either, but I agree that getting out of Syria and de-escalating is a
good thing...IF in fact that's what he's really up to.
The national security adviser expanded U.S. goals in Syria to challenge Iran. But Trump
wasn't on board, senior officials say, and Turkey took an opportunity to push the U.S.
out.
...
Most that make it in politics or entertainment go with the flow - whatever will further their
career. Empty people. I don't know this Michael Moor, but sounds lie he is one of this
type.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Dec 21, 2018 11:48:20 PM | 83
Michael Moore has produced some brilliant anti-establishment docos focusing on gun-control
(Bowling for Columbine), the US healthcare rort, the sub-prime scam, and the absence of
socio-economic well-being in AmeriKKKa (Where To Invade Next?).
I'm hoping that Kadath @ #80 is kidding, but he's right about Moore being rabidly anti-Trump
from the get-go.
Geo-political chess. Russia, Turkey, Iran have called check and Trump is moving his pieces
accordingly. I think he will pull the US out of Syria. Seems he is not as blinded by his
hatred of Iran as his appointees.
So, does this mean that Bolton should or will resign?
I thought the update of the linked article with the statement about the Kurds from the
White House official was interesting: ""They've done the majority of the fighting against
ISIS in Syria," one U.S. official said. "How do you treat a partner like this?""
ISIS was created by the US as a part of its divide and conquer strategy. General Flynn blew
the whistle on it which is why he has been vilified. Flynn spoke the truth on ISIS and lied
to the FBI! Horrors.
Now ISIS has been "defeated" and the US Quixote can focus on other windmills.
Except now comes the Syria encore, Afghanistan. Chalk up another loss for team USA.
This article written more then a year ago still reads as today analysis of the situation.
Bravo !
Notable quotes:
"... That's fine, but the problem is that Trump's track record so far makes it impossible to give him unalloyed credit for this. ..."
"... Who exactly is the US at war against in Syria and why is it going on? http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-military-bases-in-syria-their-precise-location-is-known/5600527 ..."
"... Trump has decided. Perhaps. But do the CIA and/or Pentagon really care what Trump decides? Thank you for this concise summation of Imperial Washington's war against Syria. ..."
"... The goal of supporting the Kurds is still a priority, to advance Israel's fall back position of partition. It would prefer the chaos of a regime run by jihadi scum (not going to happen thanks to V. Putin) but either way we'll do Israel's bidding. ..."
"... As so often, the weakness of the argument is obvious in the first sentence: "Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because he vowed to end the foreign conflicts in which the US had become entangled". I can't say I recall any such vow. Trump is a master of doubletalk. He says everything and the contrary of everything. ..."
"... Where is the "Special Prosecutor" on this? Assange: 'CIA Not Only Armed Syria's Insurgents -- It Paid Their Salaries' http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=57076 ..."
"... "Pompeo and David B. Rivkin Jr., a senior fellow at the neoconservative think-tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argued in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal that "Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed." Pompeo has also suggested that National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden should be executed." ..."
"... ZeroHedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-23/five-weird-conspiracy-theories-cia-director-mike-pompeo "Mike Pompeo sounds increasingly unhinged when talking about Russia, Wikileaks and the media" ..."
"... U.S. Special Operations Commander Tony Thomas confirmed Friday that the U.S. had ended its covert program aiding rebel groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying the decision was made after assessing the years-long operation's capabilities and by no means an effort to curry favor with Assad's chief backer, Moscow ..."
"... Lavrov has some pretty direct and well-deserved words for Obama. Thus, Lavrov compares Obama to a small kid unable to comprehend the responsibilities of his position of a President of the US. ..."
"... Oded Yinon in his famous article "proceeds to analyze the weaknesses of Arab countries concluding that Israel should aim to bring about the fragmentation of the Arab world into a mosaic of ethnic and confessional groupings. "Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation," he argued, would prove to be advantageous to Israel in the short term. Ilan Peleg described it as "an authentic mirror of the thinking mode of the Israeli Right at the height of Begin's rule." Chomsky warned against complacency about these fringe ideas since, he argued: "(t)he entire history of Zionism and later that of Israel, particularly since 1967, is one of a gradual shift towards the positions of those formerly regarded as right-wing extremists." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan ..."
"... van Creveld also stated: "We have the capability of taking the world down with us. And I assure you that will happen before Israel goes down." Food for thought! ..."
"... Tucker and Tulsi on Syria vs CIAria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IGAXJNzPfU ..."
Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because he vowed to end the foreign conflicts in which
the US had become entangled. So far, they have been disappointed. But this week a light flashed
at the end of the tunnel.
President Trump, according to numerous reliable Washington sources, has decided to end US
arms supplies and logistics support to Syria's jihadist rebels that have fuelled the bloody
six-year conflict. Washington, and its allies Britain and France, have persistently denied
arming Syria's jihadist rebels fighting to bring down the Russian and Iranian-backed government
of President Bashar Assad.
Former President George W. Bush actively considered invading Syria around 2008 in collusion
with Israel. But the Israelis then pointed out that there were no Western-friendly groups to
replace Assad, only extreme militant Sunni Muslim groups. Even the usually reckless Bush called
off the invasion of Syria.
By contrast, Barack Obama gave a green light to the CIA to arm, train and logistically
support anti-Assad jihadist rebels in Syria. Arms poured in from Lebanon and, later, Turkey,
paid for by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. Small numbers of US, British and French
advisors went to Syria to teach the jihadists how to use mortars, explosives, and anti-tank
weapons. The media's claim that the fighting in Syria was due to a spontaneous popular uprising
was false. The repressive Assad government was widely unpopular but the uprising was another
CIA 'color-style' operation.
The object of this operation was to overthrow President Assad and his Shiite-leaning regime,
which was supported by Iran, a bogeyman to all the US-backed feudal Arab oil monarchies. Syria
was also to be punished because it refused Washington's demands to sever ties with Iran and
accept US tutelage.
Then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton championed the covert war against Syria,
arranging massive shipments of arms and munitions to the rebels from Kadaffi-era arms stores in
Libya, and from Egypt, Croatia, likely Serbia, Bulgaria and Azerbaijan. Once again, the Gulf
Arabs paid the bill.
The offensive against Syria was accompanied by a powerful barrage of anti-Assad propaganda
from the US and British media. From the background, Israel and its partisans beat the war drum
against the Assad government.
The result of the western-engendered carnage in Syria was horrendous: at least 475,000 dead,
5 million Syrian refugees driven into exile in neighboring states (Turkey alone hosts three
million), and another 6 million internally displaced. That is, some 11 million Syrians, or 61%
of the population, driven from their homes into wretched living conditions and near famine.
Two of Syria's greatest and oldest cities, Damascus and Aleppo, have been pounded into
ruins. Jihadist massacres and Russian and American air strikes have ravaged once beautiful,
relatively prosperous Syria. Its ancient Christian peoples are fleeing for their lives before
US and Saudi takfiri religious fanatics.
Just when it appeared the jihadists were closing in on Damascus, limited but effective
Russian military intervention abruptly changed the course of the war. The Syrian Army was able
to regain the military initiative and push back the jihadists. Intermixed with so-called
'takfiri' rebels are some 3,000 ISIS jihadists who were originally armed and equipped by US
advisors but have now run amok. They are under fierce western air attack in Syria and Iraq and
are splintering.
Russia and the US have been inching toward a major war over Syria. In fact, US intervention
has been far more extensive than generally believed, as this writer has been reporting for the
past five years. Turkish media linked to the government in Ankara has just revealed that the US
has at least ten small military bases in northern Syria being used to support rebel jihadist
forces.
Meanwhile, the US is now relying almost entirely on Kurdish militias, know in Syria as YPG,
to attack ISIS and act in US interests. This has outraged Turkey, which regards YPG as part of
the hated Kurdish independence movement, PKK, against which Turkey has fought for two decades.
During the 1980's, I covered the Turkish-PKK conflict in eastern Anatolia.
If YPG/PKK emerges victorious from the Syrian conflict, Kurdish demands for an independent
state in south eastern Turkey will intensify, threatening the breakup of the Turkish state.
Kurds make up some 20% of Turkey's population of 80 million.
For this very important reason, Turkey has been pulling away from US-run NATO, and warming
relations with Moscow. Turkey has NATO's second largest armed forces and key airbases that
cover the Mideast.
Trump's announced retreat from Syria -- if it turns out to be real -- will mark a major
turning point in US-Russian relations. It could well avoid a clash between Russia and the US,
both nuclear powers. The US has no real business in Syria and no strategic interests
America's powerful neocons, who have been pressing for war against Russia, will be furious.
Expect the media war against Trump to intensify. So too claims that Trump colluded with Moscow
to get elected.
But this week a light flashed at the end of the tunnel. President Trump, according to
numerous reliable Washington sources, has decided to end US arms supplies and logistics
support to Syria's jihadist rebels that have fuelled the bloody six-year conflict.
That's fine, but the problem is that Trump's track record so far makes it impossible
to give him unalloyed credit for this. At the moment it has to be counted as just
another "up" moment in the rollercoaster ride that has been the Trump presidency so far. Will
it foreshadow further moves towards sanity in foreign policy? Or will it just be followed by
another literally stupid lurch back to the neocon-driven norm?
Looked at optimistically, you can read it as a sign that the underlying sensibleness of
the patriotic "America first" noninterventionist approach (as opposed to the usual
Israel/Saudi first, or US-uber-alles militarism, or "humanitarian interventionism" approach)
is finally prevailing, or at least as a sign of a reduction in the US regime drive towards
direct confrontation of Russia.
But looked at pessimistically, it's just an admission of the already obvious failure of
one particular interventionist approach and its termination in favour of alternative
approaches to the same ends, which will be followed by some idiocy such as another childish
murder of Syrian conscripts when Trump is shown some more emotionally manipulative
photographs.
Kudos to Mr. Margolis for penning an excellent article describing the real facts of the
matter against the prevailing propaganda narrative and placing the blame, including by
implication war crimes responsibility, where it belongs.
Why is NO ONE at UNZ covering the UN pay-to-play Corruption/Bribery trial of Ng Lap Seng ?
More coming down the pike involving Ban Ki Moon's brother ! Thank Goodness for Mattew Lee at
Inner City Press ! https://youtu.be/62YnvqveGYU
UNZ should DEFINITELY carry his reportage as he seems to be the ONLY one at the Pressers w/
Dujarric asking questions about ANYTHING at the UN.
Former President George W. Bush actively considered invading Syria around 2008 in
collusion with Israel. But the Israelis then pointed out that there were no
Western-friendly groups to replace Assad, only extreme militant Sunni Muslim groups. Even
the usually reckless Bush called off the invasion of Syria.
You mean the Israeli government's desire that the US fragment Middle Eastern Arab states
for Israel's hegemonic purposes is actually a concern for "Western-friendly groups?" And the
repeated Israeli statements that "ISIS would be better than Assad" means they totally changed
their mind since Bush days? Something doesn't smell quite right here.
President Trump, according to numerous reliable Washington sources, has decided to
end US arms supplies and logistics support to Syria's jihadist rebels that have fueled the
bloody six-year conflict.
Trump has decided. Perhaps. But do the CIA and/or Pentagon really care what Trump
decides? Thank you for this concise summation of Imperial Washington's war against
Syria.
The great thing resulting from the election of Trump is that it made quite clear how
undemocratic the USA is, and how Israel influences, tries to determine, USA foreign policy.
Trump and Putin agree on a partial cease fire in Syria, who objects ?: Netanyahu. What media
continue accusing Trump on collusion with the enemy, Russia ? CNN, Washpost and NYT. I hope
Trump survives the Cold Civil War. Kennedy did not.
@RandalThe goal of supporting the Kurds is still a priority, to advance Israel's fall back
position of partition. It would prefer the chaos of a regime run by jihadi scum (not going to
happen thanks to V. Putin) but either way we'll do Israel's bidding.
Mr. Margolis is must read for me but I wonder at his embrace of the "repressive,"
"unpopular" Assad regime view. I don't get that impression and it is certainly not the view
of Eva Bartlett or Vanessa Beeley. The chemical weapons stuff is complete garbage as Margolis
knows.
Trump will be very popular if he pulls this off, war in Syria is not in the US interest and
being friends with Russia is a smart move. Go Trump!
Good article Eric!
The result of the western-engendered carnage in Syria was horrendous: at least
475,000 dead, 5 million Syrian refugees driven into exile in neighboring states (Turkey
alone hosts three million), and another 6 million internally displaced. That is, some 11
million Syrians, or 61% of the population, driven from their homes into wretched living
conditions and near famine.
You can lay all this at the door of Israel, US Neo-cons and their Congressional and MSM
collaborators + treasonous leaders like Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Same for the Iraq
war (duck shoot) with its WMD lies and the MSM 9/11 trigger "Event". The US as an Israeli
colony is a disaster for the people of Iraq, Libya and Syria and it's also the worst news for
the 98% of Gentiles in the US who have now lost their country to these Zionist freaks.
To claim that Israel got Bush the Mad to back off from invading Syria because they were
concerned about moderate head choppers being the only ones who would fill the power vacuum is
laughable. Israel has supported these thugs many times with medical care, money, shelter in
the stolen Golan and most importantly, their MSM buddies printing all those stories about how
Assad must go.
Israel had been directing its colony, the formerly free USA, to bust up Syria and murder
Assad and that we have been faithfully trying to do, but that damned Putin got in the way, so
sic the MSM on him and his buddy Trump.
The illegal war against Syria is far from over, Israel is PO that Syria hasn't been
destroyed and they will not take lightly some chump like Trump interfering with their
plans.
@Russ I think
that is a good observation. I also believe his traitorous sidekick Graham will also be a
little less vocal about his support for world destruction now that his comrade in stupidity
has fallen. These two obviously are bought and paid for by the Zionists. There is no other
explanation for their predictable level of malice and stupidity.
All good points but its disgusting how left anti imperialists care more about a foreign
people than the colonization and dispossession of the their own group by hordes of 'the
other' from the global south under the aegis of neoliberal ideology.
Well, we non-USA can only be hoping. That order was one of the better, anybody who is reading
English is to knowing that the building attack had nothing to do with a consulate, but the
consul happened to be there at the time. Sure, probably CIA. The weapons-running operation
certainly was.
Hillary was terrible to making 'The Kindness of Muslims' maker the scapegoat, sending him
to prison in defiance of his rights, I only saw the short, but it was both apt and funny, if
there is a feature-length version, I would love to seeing it. It did exist, it seems, was
shown once or twice.
As so often, the weakness of the argument is obvious in the first sentence: "Many
Americans voted for Donald Trump because he vowed to end the foreign conflicts in which the
US had become entangled". I can't say I recall any such vow. Trump is a master of doubletalk.
He says everything and the contrary of everything.
Mr Margolis, and others, heard what they wanted to hear and believed what they wanted to
believe. Quite simply, they fell into the trap Trump set for them. Even if Trump wasn't the
most pro-Israel president in US history, the Israel Lobby is there to see that US foreign
policy suits Israel's interests. Israel sees Iran as its principal enemy. Putin has snuggled
up to Iran and is propping up Iran's "ally", Assad. Israel thus needs to get both Assad and
Putin out of Syria. By failing to stand up to Putin in Ukraine, Obama allowed him to
discredit the US as Europe's, and by extension, Israel's protector and to discredit NATO as
the instrument of that protection. For obvious reasons of geography, there's no way the US
can defend Israel without the use of bases in Europe.
Thus, Trump has to restore US and NATO credibility and the only way to do that is to get
Putin out of Ukraine and, ideally, out of power. The simplest way to do that is to fight him
in Syria, where he's bogged down and cornered and cannot escape unless the US capitulates.
Thus, arming or not arming this or that Syrian group is totally irrelevant. It just shows
that the US can turn the heat up and down on Putin at will. I can't imagine, therefore, why
US neocons would be "furious".
The longer Putin is bogged down in Syria, the better. The last thing Trump needs is to
have anything he does, whether in Syria or Ukraine, billed as a "retreat" in regard to Putin.
That will simply inflame Russiagate.
Trumps word means nothing, and he never said a thing about the pentagram ending their support
of Isis aka al ciada, so this is much ado about nothing, the Zionists want war and war they
shall have until Zionist Israel destroys America.
Zionist Israel and the U.S. and Britain created isis aka al ciada and anyone who thinks
they have given up on regime change and the greater Israel plan in the Mideast is sadly
mistaken. America is under Zionist control.
Could it be that Trump is waking up? In spite of all his bluster during the campaign, it's
become obvious that Mr. Trump doesn't have the foggiest idea how government and politics
actually works. It's just a LITTLE different than running a real-estate operation.
My opinion is that that Trump, being the very insecure egotist that he is, is beginning,
just barely, to realize what people actually expect, not what the neocon con-artists and
rigged "opinion polls" tell him the story is.
Is Trump, maybe, just kinda sorta maybe, waking up to slimeballs like his dirty little
son-in-law he so fervently followed in the past?
Anyway, Trump has been scoring big lately with his chat with Putin and this kick to the
neocons' sensitive area.
Let's all write the guy and tell him he's on the right track. I'm sure the "opinion polls"
will tell him just the opposite, since they're nothing more than some Jew in an office in
Brooklyn telling us what we believe.
You are so clearly a harmful propagandist on so many levels that I need not to
pointing it out.
I am knowing that you are to making one or two of good points at times, but only to draw
to all of your lies and stupid assumptions. Essentially, to making EU= NATO=zionism is the
great thing to you, hate Russia is your cause.
Your 'Michael Kenny' is as much a pseudonym as mine. It is obvious. At least, when I am
posting, it is from the heart of the person behind the pseudonym and of goodwill or to
informing. Reading yours, it is very difficult to see any good intentions.
Many others here are to having critical faculties. They also will be seeing you for what
you are, just a nasty and cheap propagandist, with posts that are always being too long.
Are you on some kind of 'net agent of influence programme? Sure is looking like it.
The evidence seems to support the view that an informational war, with some actual murders,
is taking place within and between, the CIA, FBI, NSA, other U.S. agencies and institutions.
Also this happened in Russia but as Putin survived and consolidated power, it's much less so
now. It is probably happening in many countries. I have come to the conclusion that these
"hidden wars" within seemingly unified groups is part and parcel of human nature. The bad guy
deceivers normally have a huge advantage in that they become much more skilled at deceiving.
Their great disadvantage is that they eventually go so obviously nuts that nobody believes
them anymore!
Since the Resistance has relentlessly played the bogus Russia narrative to a point where it
is hampering him from getting anything done (thus jeopardizing his reelection, if not some
crazy impeachment attempt), Trump's only choice, according to Jiu-Jitsu, is to flip the
script and make the Left the pro-War party. Go!
http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/disaster-area/
Some years ago I had the pleasure of coming across a book by the aged doyen of "oriental
studies," Bernard Lewis. Titled What Went Wrong and first published in 2002, it tried to
explain how and why the brilliant civilization of the Middle Ages had declined until,
finally, it reached the point where the epithet "Arab" is positive only when applied to a
horse.
Must be tough typing out a couple thousand word screed re the destruction of the ME without
mentioning the vile jooies and their total domination of American foreign policy in the area.
The US Knesset on the Potomac is now actually trying to pass a law outlawing any criticism of
the bloodthirsty Izzies ..with very stiff fines for offenders. Need any more evidence?
@Sean The
brilliant Muslim civilization is a myth It never existed.
The Arabs conquered the Middle East and blundered into the legacy of Egypt, Persia
Mesopotamia, Greece Rome, and the Byzantine empire. Claiming the Muslim primitive Arabs
created the legacy of those civilizations is like saying Walter Raleigh developed tobacco or
the Spanish conquerors developed potatoes and corn. Iranians still resent the conquest of
their ancient civilization by the barbarian primitive Arabs
It took about 500 years but the Muslim Arabs destroyed those civilization. Morrish Spain?
Every one of those great buildings, from architects and engineers to porters were built by
European slaves.
It was the numerous Christians and less numerous Jews who kept things going. The Turks
wouldn't even hire Muslim Arabs for any kind of government positions in the Arab countries.
They used local Christians, Jews and imported slave Europeans.
I've read Bernard Lewis. He's outdated. For a long time in the 19th and early 20th century
Jews wrote many of those books extolling the superiority of Muslim Jewish countries over us
blue eyed barbarians. Lewis is one of those writers
@Michael
KennyFor obvious reasons of geography, there's no way the US can defend Israel
without the use of bases in Europe.
Why should the USA defend Israel from its horrible choices, especially being an Apartheid
nightmare? Why should we defend a nation that has attacked our ships, bases and personnel
numerous times? Why should we defend a nation that has control of our economy thru their
choke-hold on the FED and Treasury? Why should we defend a nation that acts like a spoiled
child anytime it doesn't get it's way and goes on murderous rampages against the world's
biggest concentration camp, Gaza? Why should we defend a nation that attacked us on 9/11,
then had their MSM whores blame the Muslim world?
The illness of McCain will give the prospects for cooperation between the US and Russian a
big boost. Here is an interesting article on the subject.
Dismantling McCain's Disastrous Legacy Should Now Be Trump's Top Priority
By Tom Luongo
The Arizona senator's absence creates a unique opportunity for President Trump to alter
the course of our foreign and domestic policy. From Iraq to Libya, Syria to Afghanistan and
right up to Russia's borders in Ukraine, McCain's bloody paw prints are all over more than
a decade of American foreign policy blunders.
@Greg Bacon
The attempted sinking of the USS Liberty in 1967 and the actions of the US government since
reveal 50 years of the Israeli tail wagging the yankee dog. It is unprecedented in history
for an auxilliary satellite state to so dominate the foreign policy actions of what should be
the dominant power. Whether or not 9-11 was a conspiracy is interesting but not dispositive,
since whatever its cause, whether or not intentionally planned or simply allowed to happen,
as I suspect, the event was used as a Reichstag fire event by the yankee regime and its
Israeli patrons to brush aside any remaining opposition to the neocon project. By the way, I
am totally convinced that the anthrax attacks occurring in the wake of 9-11 were to secure
this result.
@NoseytheDuke
" ten U.S. bases in the Syrian provinces of Al-Hasakah, Manbij and Raqqa, as well as in the
areas of Harab-Isk and Rmeilan The source also reported on the number of the U.S. servicemen
deployed at these bases."
Splendid. Illegally, on a territory of the sovereign state of Syria, without any permission
from the Syrian government.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-military-bases-in-syria-their-precise-location-is-known/5600527
But for the demonizers of Iran and apologists of Kievan junta, the US involvement in Syria is
a clear case of bringing the "democracy on the march."
@WorkingClass
"But do the CIA and/or Pentagon really care what Trump decides?"
-- You mean, the CIA and/or Pentagon will jump as high as the Lobby tell them to jump?
@Miro23 "The
US as an Israeli colony is a disaster for the people of Iraq, Libya, and Syria "
Agree. A minor addition: The US as an Israeli colony is a disaster for the people of the US
as well.
@Alden"in
the 19th and early 20th century Jews wrote many of those books extolling the superiority of
Muslim Jewish countries over us blue eyed barbarians"
Correct. But in the 2nd half of 20 c. the winds of history shifted with the creation of
state of Israel and Jewish historians decided to write the history anew in which Muslims were
not so good anymore. Father of Netanyahu was one of them.
@Greg Bacon
"Israel had been directing its colony, the formerly free USA, to bust up Syria and murder
Assad and that we have been faithfully trying to do, but that damned Putin got in the way
"
This is why the Russain Federation has been suffering the relentless barrage of demonization
and economic sanctions, and this why Americans have been suffering the stupidity of the
ziocon-promoted Russiangate.
@DESERT FOX "
the Zionists want war and war they shall have until Zionist Israel destroys America."
True. The Jewish communities of the EU/US, UK must decide -- now -- whether they are with
western civilization or with the mythological and barbarous dream of Eretz Israel. The US,
UK, and EU have been a safe harbor for the majority of Jewish people for the last 50 years.
However, the Jewish Lobby is not satisfied with such trifles as the peaceful life and
security and it wants Eretz Israel; PNAC (ziocons' manifest) has been used as an ideological
guise.
There were certain sane Germans who tried to stop Hitler and thus to save Germany. Some of
them paid for the attempts with their lives. Where are the Jewish communities of the US, UK,
and EU to stop the lunatics, all these Friends of Israel and AIPAC, these pushers towards a
worldwide catastrophe? See the ziocon plan in Ukraine, which made the lives of many Jews
there intolerable (welcome, neo-Nazi). What is next -- the rise of antisemitism in the
tolerant (for now) Europe and US?
If MSM were the honest sources of information, the westerners would have seen already the
thousands and thousands of little corpses, the victims of "humanitarian interventions" of
NATO/US in Libya and Syria and would already demand to hang the main war profiteers /war
criminals to prevent more carnage and more war-profiteering schems.
The ongoing wars in the Middle EAst are an integral part of Eretz Israel project. Give Israel
its due.
@Bruce
Marshall This is great: "CIA not only armed Syria's insurgents -- it paid their
salaries."
And who are these "insurgents" -- the "moderate" jihadis affiliated with ISIS and Al
Qaeda?
The supposedly "manly" CIA director Mike Pompeo comes out as a banal opportunist inclined to
hysterics.
Pompeo, "No one has the right to engage in the theft of secrets from America!"
Assange, "What sort of America can be "taken down" by the truth?"
"Pompeo and David B. Rivkin Jr., a senior fellow at the neoconservative think-tank
Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argued in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal that
"Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed." Pompeo has also
suggested that National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden should be
executed."
@Michael
Kenny "For obvious reasons of geography, there's no way the US can defend Israel without
the use of bases in Europe."
For obvious reasons, the sooner the US disengages from Israel, the better for the whole
world.
@Greg Bacon
Why should you? Because Jesus was a Jew just kidding! But didn't you utter something about a
chockhold on the Fed and the Treasury? Well, it may just be me but if I controlled my bitch's
purse then she would be dancing to my tune too!
Here is one of the many views of this unstable man -- How the Trump regime was
manufactured by a war inside the Deep Stat . A systemic crisis in the global Deep
System has driven the violent radicalization of a Deep State faction By Nafeez Ahmed
Top general confirms end to secret U.S. program in Syria
Special Operations commander walked back remarks that appeared to surprise the CIA. ASPEN
-- U.S. Special Operations Commander Tony Thomas confirmed Friday that the U.S. had ended
its covert program aiding rebel groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying
the decision was made after assessing the years-long operation's capabilities and by no means
an effort to curry favor with Assad's chief backer, Moscow . The comments appeared to
take the CIA -- which declined to comment -- by surprise.
Thomas almost immediately tried to walk back his comments after leaving the stage, telling
reporters he hadn't confirmed anything and was referring only to "public reporting."
@jilles
dykstra It won't come to that right away. But it will come to that if Trump does not
ultimately keep the pressure on the Assad regime, and if he ignores all the drumbeats (and
survives the "impeachment").
Try to compare Lavrov with a typical US legislator, for example, with Maxine Waters, John
McCain, and Chuck Schumer, who represent three main subgroups in the US Congress. The decades
of "unnatural selection" in the US government have produced a collection of intellectual and
moral pygmies, unfortunately.
Lavrov has some pretty direct and well-deserved words for Obama. Thus, Lavrov compares
Obama to a small kid unable to comprehend the responsibilities of his position of a President
of the US.
WHATEVER happens, Syria will remain a backward, retarded, Muslim shithole with no freedom,
democracy, respect for women, free speech or press and an all around dysfuntional Arab
country.
@dorkimundo
It is so easy to spot a ziocon thirsty for the US resources, who is eager to see the US to
waste the US limb&blood for the barbarious dream of Eretz Israel
@anon "
dysfunctional Arab country."
It is fun to observe how Israelis of Soviet extraction feel superior to other Israelis and to
everybody else. Check the level of "democracy, respect for women, free speech or press" in
Afghanistan in the 80-s and compare the facts with the disaster brought upon Afghani women by
US warriors.
Your bloodthirsty ideologues of Eretz Israel dream nothing more than creating the
dysfunctional Arab countries next to Israel (see Oded Yinon plan); hence the slaughter of
hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians of all ages in the Middle East. After this
holocaust of Arabs, which was designed and promoted by Israelis and Israel-firsters in the
US, your apartheid state of Israel will never recover morally. You are doomed.
@RobinG He is
the LAST Real Journalist at the UN pressers . Him today explain his oust of his office space
at the UN and replacement by a FAKE "Egyptian" Newspaper.
Thanks for it. Interrupted by a friend and tired, am forgetting what else I was wanting to
say, but your post 42 in this thread is very good.
IMHO, as USA people say, that man is a three-dollar bill. I don't even know if it was
common speech or made up by Phillip Kindred Dick, but 'phoney as a three-dollar bill', it is
a great expression!
@Alden My
point is the Arabs have never been easy to govern and they revolt a lot. Martin van Creveld
says
The aftermath of the war [WW1] saw the establishment of the colonies -- which later
developed into independent states -- of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, the Gulf, and Trans-Jordan
(as it then was). Saudi Arabia, which was never occupied by either Britain or France,
became independent by default. [...]
Since then the peace to end all peace, as it has been called, has remained the source of
endless trouble. First the British had to cope with Arab uprisings in Palestine and, on a
much larger scale, in Iraq. No sooner were those revolts suppressed than trouble broke out
on the border between Trans Jordan and Saudi Arabia, an entirely artificial line on the map
that the local tribes refused to respect. In 1927-29 it was the turn of the French to
cope with what is still remembered as the Great Syrian Revolt. [...]
How to account for all this trouble? Perhaps the most important answer is the
extraordinary complexity of the region. A complexity which the new states, lacking firm
roots in the population as they did, never succeeded in controlling. There are, of course,
Egyptians and Syrians and Iraqis and Saudis and so forth. But there are also Israelis and
Palestinians. And Arabs and Kurds. And Egyptian Muslims and Egyptian Copts. There are
Sunnis and there are Shi'ites and there are Allawi's, whom some do not recognize as
Muslims at all ).
The Kurds' interminable revolts have had help from the US. but really you cannot say the
US created the uprising of the Kurds against every state they reside in The last time the US
helped Kurds and then abandoned them. Just like the Syrian rebels. Kurds never expected
anything different as they have been dumped by the US before. Leaving their erstwhile allies
to their fate is something America has a reputation for. So I would not get excited about the
US doing it in Syria.
@Sean " the
Arabs have never been easy to govern and they revolt a lot."
When "Arabs" is replaced with "Jews", the statement could be from a book on the history of
the Jewish Greek wars, "the Jews have never been easy to govern and they revolt a lot:"
http://www.onjewishmatters.com/the-jewish-greek-wars/
As for Martin van Creveld, this supremacist barbarian has obtained his fame by promoting
the Samson Option. " Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive
Branch (2003) as saying: " We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can
launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are
targets for our air force. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Very clear. Also explains the miserable role that the US is currently playing on the orders
from the Lobby.
Trump is thinking of doing what Cheney did on the CIA. He is sidelining Tillerson and urging
some handpicked guys to give him what he needs not to certify Iran when it is up for agin in
90 days .
"A third source with intimate knowledge of that meeting said Steve Bannon, the White House
chief strategist, and Sebastian Gorka, deputy assistant to the president, were particularly
vocal, repeatedly asking Tillerson to explain the U.S. national security benefits of
certification. "They repeatedly questioned Rex about why recertifying would be good for U.S.
national security, and Rex was unable to answer," the source said.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/21/trump-assigns-white-house-team-to-target-iran-nuclear-deal-sidelining-state-department/
It is not US interests . It is the fact that should guide Bannon , Gorka and Trump. Iran
is still in the crosshairs
@annamaria
Israel has no external threat, Syria was always a military minnow. Israel has an internal
threat inasmuch the West Bank Arabs cannot be kept as they are.
The US backs a two state solution and thus in the REALLY IMPORTANT THING America is NOT A
TOOL OF ISRAEL.
"Israel has no external threat" Israel simply wants a destruction of the functioning
neighboring states to proceed with the creation of Eretz Israel. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/eretz/future Not
all Jewish people share this view of Eretz Israel but a certain aggressive and loud part of
them does. The Likudniks are currently in power.
Oded Yinon in his famous article "proceeds to analyze the weaknesses of Arab countries
concluding that Israel should aim to bring about the fragmentation of the Arab world into a
mosaic of ethnic and confessional groupings. "Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation," he
argued, would prove to be advantageous to Israel in the short term. Ilan Peleg described it
as "an authentic mirror of the thinking mode of the Israeli Right at the height of Begin's
rule." Chomsky warned against complacency about these fringe ideas since, he argued: "(t)he
entire history of Zionism and later that of Israel, particularly since 1967, is one of a
gradual shift towards the positions of those formerly regarded as right-wing extremists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan
One could sympathize with the non-solvable situation for Israel, if not the horrors of the
ongoing Middle Eastern wars that have been promoted by neo-& ziocons.
Is there any evidence that Assad is not the legitimate ruler of Syria? Or that Syria is
better off now than before the civil war started? Those poor people deserve peace.
van Creveld also stated: "We have the capability of taking the world down with us. And
I assure you that will happen before Israel goes down." Food for thought!
"Despite assurances to the contrary, Israel has always been involved in the Syria
conflict. Israel's repeated claims that "it maintains a policy of non-intervention in Syria's
civil war," only fools US mainstream media. Not only was Israel involved in the war, it also
played no role in the aid efforts, nor did it ever extend a helping hand to Syrian
refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have perished in the merciless war; many cities
and villages were totally destroyed and millions of Syrians become refugees. While tiny and
poor Lebanon has hosted over a million Syrian refugees, every country in the region and many
nations around the world have hosted Syrian refugees, as well. Except Israel.
Even a symbolic government proposal to host 100 Syrian orphans was eventually
dropped ." ( -- Wait when the Lobby starts squeaking that mentioning this shameful fact
is antisemitic.)
Israel has major responsibility for the Syrian tragedy. Astonishingly, Israelis are
planning to triple down on the support for ISIS & Co in Syria.
"Since the start of the conflict, Israel wanted to appear as if in control of the situation,
at least regarding the conflict in southwestern Syria. It bombed targets in Syria as it
saw fit , and casually spoke of maintaining regular contacts with certain opposition
groups. In recent comments before European officials, Netanyahu admitted to striking Iranian
convoys in Syria [whcih is a sovereign state] "dozens of times." But without a joint
Israeli-US plan, Israel is now emerging as a weak party. Making that realization quite
belatedly, Israel is becoming increasingly frustrated. Failing to obtain support from
newly-elected President Donald Trump, Israel is now attempting to develop its own independent
strategy.
On June 18, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been giving "secret aid"
to Syrian rebels, in the form of "cash and humanitarian aid ." -- See the US taxpayers'
money in actions ($3 billion this year only). The "war on terror" came down to the "cash and
humanitarian aid" to terrorists, delivered by Israel directly from the US taxpayers pockets
to Israel's favorite head-choppers.
Russiagate, what a nonsensical concept. Constantly shifting narrative. (1) OMG, they hacked
voting machines! (2) OMG, they hacked DNC servers! (3) OMG, someone talked to a Russian!
"... The New York Times published an editorial Thursday invoking the authority of Trump's national security adviser, the maniacal warmonger and international bully, John Bolton, citing his vow to expand the role of US troops in Syria to confront Iran ..."
"... Under conditions in which his White House is under mounting political and legal siege connected to the Mueller investigation and the conviction and sentencing of past aides and associates, the timing of the Syria announcement may well have been driven by Trump's calculation that a troop withdrawal would be viewed favorably by the majority of the US population. ..."
"... However cynical Trump's motives, there is no question that there is immense popular hostility to the never-ending US wars in the Middle East ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... This slaughter has been justified in the name of a war against ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), which was itself the product of the US war of aggression against Iraq, which claimed roughly a million lives and demolished an entire society. ISIS was further nurtured through the subsequent wars for regime-change in Libya and Syria, where Washington armed and supported the very same Islamist militias that it subsequently claimed to be fighting. ..."
"... The bitter debate in Washington is driven by rival factions within the ruling class that are equally rapacious and bloodthirsty, determined to prepare for global war to advance the interests of a crisis-ridden American capitalist order against its major rivals, China and Russia, while divided over tactics in terms of how to pursue these aims in the Middle East and elsewhere ..."
"... This conflict unfolds in the absence of a mass antiwar movement in the United States and internationally ..."
The New York Times published an editorial Thursday invoking the authority of Trump's
national security adviser, the maniacal warmonger and international bully, John Bolton, citing
his vow to expand the role of US troops in Syria to confront Iran .
... ... ...
Under conditions in which his White House is under mounting political and legal siege
connected to the Mueller investigation and the conviction and sentencing of past aides and
associates, the timing of the Syria announcement may well have been driven by Trump's
calculation that a troop withdrawal would be viewed favorably by the majority of the US
population.
In response to Graham's heated denunciations of the decision, Trump tweeted, "So hard to
believe that Lindsey Graham would be against saving soldier lives & billions of $$$. Why
are we fighting for our enemy, Syria, by staying & killing ISIS for them, Russia, Iran
& other locals? Time to focus on our Country & bring our youth back home where they
belong!"
However cynical Trump's motives, there is no question that there is immense popular
hostility to the never-ending US wars in the Middle East .
Those denouncing the withdrawal announcement do not even attempt to make a case to the
population for the continuation of the US intervention, which is illegal both under US and
international law. Their entire appeal is pitched to the American ruling establishment and,
above all, to the vast US military and intelligence apparatus.
There was a similar appeal to the military in an op-ed by Washington Post foreign
affairs columnist David Ignatius, a dependable mouthpiece for the CIA and the Pentagon, who
warned that Trump's troop withdrawal would create a "vacuum that will be filled by one of a
series of bad actors -- Iran, Russia, Turkey, Islamic extremists, the Syrian regime -- take
your pick, they're all dangerous for American interests in the Middle East."
He argues that the US military presence had "stabilized northeast Syria; it blocked Iranian
expansion; it checked Russian hegemony; it gave the US some bargaining leverage for an eventual
political settlement in Syria."
This "bargaining leverage" was based upon the US military's use of special forces troops and
Kurdish militia proxy forces to lay hold of one third of Syria's national territory, including
oil and natural gas fields that are vital to providing the resources for reconstructing a
country devastated by more than seven years of a US-orchestrated war for regime-change.
Invoking his visit to US bases in Syria earlier this year, Ignatius writes, "It's hard to
describe the competence of American troops in Syria without sounding corny. Suffice it to say
that they found a way to project American power with maximum damage to the enemy and minimum
cost for America."
This "maximum damage" can be seen in the rubble of Raqqa, which was largely razed to the
ground by US bombs and shells. According to the monitoring group Airwars, nearly 30,000 Syrians
have been reported killed as a result of US bombardments, with tens of thousands more
maimed.
This slaughter has been justified in the name of a war against ISIS (Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria), which was itself the product of the US war of aggression against Iraq, which
claimed roughly a million lives and demolished an entire society. ISIS was further nurtured
through the subsequent wars for regime-change in Libya and Syria, where Washington armed and
supported the very same Islamist militias that it subsequently claimed to be fighting.
The bitter debate in Washington is driven by rival factions within the ruling class that
are equally rapacious and bloodthirsty, determined to prepare for global war to advance the
interests of a crisis-ridden American capitalist order against its major rivals, China and
Russia, while divided over tactics in terms of how to pursue these aims in the Middle East and
elsewhere .
This conflict unfolds in the absence of a mass antiwar movement in the United States and
internationally , which is due in large measure to the role played by various pseudo-left
organizations, from the New Anti-capitalist Party in France to the International Socialist
Organization in the US and the Left Party in Germany. Reflecting privileged layers of the
middle class whose social interests are bound up with those of imperialism, all of them have
sought to justify the imperialist intervention by the US and its allies in Syria based upon
phony claims that CIA-backed Islamist militias are the champions of a democratic "revolution"
and by waving the discredited flag of "human rights" imperialism.
Clearly something else might be in play here, and this might be a step in preparation of the
attack on Iran.
Trump clearly was not in control of his cabinet foright policy until this surprise decision.
Notable quotes:
"... The negative reaction in the European capitals is also significant. ..."
"... gotta love the timing at least. with everyone in DC going on their extended holidays soon there won't be many folks around to piss and whine about this. though maybe they'll spend their time by the campfire in their plush hamptons cabins spinning future tales about "Iranian Collusion". ..."
"... Like firing a smoke grenade into a hornets' nest. What a priceless sight. The atlanticist scum over here in Germany are really at a loss, flat on their backs. Well done, Donald! ..."
"... I guess no pay no game for Trump. Plus, he might wish to keep his son-in-law away from the spotlights as Mr. Erdogan is coming up with increasingly more details about the Khashoggi murder. ..."
"... the fact of the UN hindering the formation of the Constitutional Committee shows continued CIA meddling. ..."
"... US involvement in Syria goes way beyond boots on the ground . 4000 troops/contractors being removed with as many if not more on the border wont change much. Plenty of strings still to pull. ..."
"... Syria never seemed to be worth all the effort unless they could have brought down Assad. Perhaps its as simple as being satisfied with keeping the north in a NATO ally hands and keeping the south Iran free. Perhaps he intends to divert the savings from Syria and using those funds to build the wall. Perhaps he has another target in mind. Perhaps nothing will change and another FF is in the works to keep us in. ..."
"... This is a must watch Jimmy Dore show, Professor Jeffrey Sachs stuns the TV panel with some home truths about the war in Syria and how the CIA and Saudi Arabia set up regime change. Dore is brilliant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2TRzA2ezk ..."
"... Woodwards book on Trump recounts a scene where the president orders Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to kill Assad . "Let's F 'ingkill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the F'ing lot of them," According to Woodward, Mattis ignored the order, or he didn't perceive it as a direct order, and instead presented the president with a menu of more limited options. Bolton is a happy man with Mattis leaving ..."
"... Bolton supposedly is pushing a plan to get Turkey into a confrontation with Russia. Trump offered Erdogan delivery of F35 fighters starting in 3 weeks and supposedly bought off Erdogan with the US withdrawal. ..."
"... The US just spent years trying to create a Kurdish state on turkey's border and it backed (maybe organized) a coup attempt against Erdogan. ..."
"... i believe the CFR was pushing for a Kurd state composed of large pieces of turkey including a slice of it leading to the sea. ..."
"... The Kurdish statelet idea is of Zionist manufacture, aimed at reducing Syria to a rump state while diminishing Turkish abilities. The action now seems to be moving to the waters around Cyprus and the NatGas located there. IMO, Zionistan has reached its acme and will begin its decline due to its many internal issues and corruption -- all in addition to its self-generated problems with Palestine and Lebanon. ..."
"... "So US withdrawal is a Russian trap as any engagement between Russia and Turkey could bring the US and the rest of Nato in to defend Turkey" ..."
"... The military campaign against Islamic State continues," French army spokesman Patrik Steiger told a news conference. "At this stage, the announcement by the American president has no impact on France's ongoing participation (in the coalition) ..."
"... So the French need a talking to about their illegal presence in Syria unless they are going to take the mantle of empire over from the US and lead this illegal coalition. ..."
"... Good Article. The damage has been done to Syria for a generation, maybe much longer. It possibly forces a Russia Turkey confrontation at some point in the future. It is a small reversal in the overstretched empire we have become. ..."
"... ISIS was created by the US as a part of its divide and conquer strategy. General Flynn blew the whistle on it which is why he has been vilified. Flynn spoke the truth on ISIS and lied to the FBI! Horrors. Now ISIS has been "defeated" and the US Quixote can focus on other windmills. Except now comes the Syria encore, Afghanistan. Chalk up another loss for team USA. ..."
b, you, by far, are one of the most pragmatic geopolitical strategy experts on the web.
You study the board, make sense of the plays at hand and communicate what you are seeing
thoroughly to all who have found you and wish to learn what's really going on, especially
in the Middle East.
Your outstanding work on all things Syria during the Obama years helped steady nerves
and fears. Thank you! You are a rare gem with whom I am most grateful to have found and
link to, often.
For those who continue to struggle with Trump and what is driving him, I might suggest
you go back to the campaign days. He told everyone his policy plans. Because you may have
dismissed them or didn't bother to learn his game plan doesn't mean he doesn't have one. He
does.
Withdrawal from Syria, next Afghanistan, is and always has been his policy. The
Bush/Cheney neoconservatives are a withering lot of useless pond scum. You may believe
Bolton and team have influence, but you'd be sorely wrong. Conservatives elected a person
who is owned by no one. And now that we're holding peace talks with the Taliban one may
cautiously anticipate future withdrawal announcements. Time will tell.
Merry Christmas, b! I'll be dropping a tip in your tip jar over the holiday. Hoping
others will too. Imagine, peace may finally be at hand. Geez, I surely hope so.
WJ | Dec 20, 2018 10:53:38 AM | 14 (Annette @ 4 & anti-semitism)
This thread is about US Foreign Policy. Walt & Mearsheimer produced an impeccably
well-researched book called The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which focused on the
pervasive influence of The Lobby on US Politics.
"Israel" touts itself as The Jewish State. It is therefore laughable to attempt to concoct
an excuse to separate Jews from Zionism and Zionism from Jews.
Why aren't there enough 'Good Jews' in the world to stop the Zionist Jews from Holocausting
Palestinians - for "Israel"?
Consider: The purpose of all "false-flag" events is to influence public emotions and
viewpoints; to manage/control public perceptions; all to enable some action that otherwise
would fail/succumb to overriding dissent.
Instead of "false-flag" events, a President could accomplish just as much by doing simply
what the public would overwhelmingly support. The effects would be genuine and long lasting,
without ongoing risks of being exposed as lies, fraud, etc.
In other words, acting in fairness, the very definition of justice.
Ending the Yemen campaign is next. It will probably happen quickly. The house dems are
raising the issue to the front, which is finally a step in the right direction for them. Time
is not on trump's side if he indeed wants to end another fruitless mena affair and maga
before the dems are able to take credit for ending the us involvement there.
I earlier thought Trump was easily talked into keeping US in Syria due to his hatred of Iran.
I commented in a thread a week or two back that the door to Trump was through Iran. Whatever
Trump's forming plan for Iran was, I suspect the fallout from the Khashoggi killing put an
end to it.
Israel & AIPAC desperately wanted to kick of THE great Middle East war. That would
have had devastating consequences for every one on the planet not just the US.
Thanks for this outstanding analysis, b! Apparently, Trump's more capable than he's made out
to be.
Murray's excellent essay you linked to I read before yours and heartily agree; I hope all
take the time to visit his site. As many note, the focus will now turn to Afghanistan, the
initial region of contention during Great Game I. And just in time, Pepe Escobar provides us
with this excellent
overview , which is supposed to be complemented by a second part. Much of what's
published in Western BigLie media about BRI is just that, lies, whereas the actual history
and ongoing current developments are far more fascinating.
One can speculate if Russia had introduced advanced S-300s earlier Trump might have been
emboldened to act earlier, which would have saved many lives. But, that will remain one of
history's many What ifs? Plus, BigLie Media propaganda was no longer fooling anyone. I hope
Trump's newly found spine will allow the Koreas to get on with their Peace Treaty and
economic unification.
We'll see what Trump does, and what is done to him. If the Deep State (if you don't like DS
then choose another term) really actually sees Syria as a losing proposition, then this will
give pump up Trump with his supporters. If the Deep State is dead set against it, then expect
Mueller to win, or expect Trump to have something unfortunate happen to him.
I'd have added
this important item regarding Korea but just now discovered it and quickly becomes
obvious why Garrie cited it fully. Here's a teaser:
"South Koreans from all walks of life said that there is no justification for outside
forces to interfere in the internal affairs of the nation, strongly urging them to work for
durable peace in the Korean peninsula, rather than hampering the development of inter-Korean
relations and national reunification.
"They underscored the need to cooperate with the north on the principle of national
independence and unity even though foreign intervention and meddling get more intensive. A
south Korean news agency recently called for holding north-south dialogue and cooperation
independently, saying inter-Korean relations should not fall prey to the 'alliance' with
foreign forces"
Clearly, much has occurred in Korea over the Summer and Fall that went unreported by
Western BigLie Media, which is odd since Korean Peace and unification of Koreans ought to be
a highly celebrated, welcomed, and long overdue event.
I also think the S-300's played a part in Trump's decision. I had read a few days back
Russian military saying US flights were greatly reduced after the introduction of S-300 to
Syria but am unsure if that was the original S-300 at Tartus or the more recent installation
of a number of S-300's, one thought to be at Deir Ezzor.
It is beginning to look like a masterful deal has been struck between Putin and Trump, one
that makes both look good, shuts up their critics - including me - at least a little and
makes the world a better and safer place. Putin backs down in Kerch Strait and Trump backs
down in Syria. Everyone wins, except the neocons.
"This was the first time Trump took a decisive stand against the borg, the permanent
neoconservative and interventionist establishment in his administration, the military and
congress, that usually dictates U.S. foreign policy."
Ahh, the continued saga of the "Myth of the Good King". The mindless masses continue to believe that Trump is fighting the Military-Industrial
"establishment", despite the overwhelming evidence that he continues to support that same
M-I-C, via ever-increasing defense budgets, and policies which serve to further enrich the
same elite he purports to fight. Trump, like his predecessors, and the M-I-C, is still deeply in bed with the governments
of Israel and Saudi Arabia. The true "Deep State" is much deeper, and much more complex than a couple careless FBI
agents, and "Dem" operatives.
Don't forget that the administration of Mafia Don is staffed with perhaps more former
Executives of Goldman Sachs, than most all previous administrations.
Further, Trump is still supporting the VASTLY growing programs of domestic spying by the same
intelligence/military.security agencies that are instrumental components of the M-I-C. This is your "Hero"? Your "Great White Knight".
This is what you call propaganda.
Propaganda is only truly effective when it isn't recognized as such.
"While these people first tried to change Trump's decision, their resistance has now
ceased"
Hardly! By the official count, there are 503 U.S. troops stationed in the Islamic State's former
capital. Unofficially, according to The Washington Post and other press reports, the figure
is closer to 4,000. The U.S. is not closing down its military presence in Syria. It is digging in for an
indefinite period, making Raqqa the equivalent of the Green Zone in Baghdad. This is called SPIN.
SPIN is the very foundation of the administration of Mafia Don. His whole life has been a lesson in massive SPIN and PR propaganda. You can pretty much take EVERYTHING Mafia Don says, then turn it 180 degrees to get the
truth.
"It is quite refreshing to see that Trump was finally able to liberate himself from the
dictate of the borg. By moving the U.S. out of Syria he fulfilled one of his election
promises"
Confirmation Bias is a logical fallacy in which one uses only those facts which support
their case, beliefs, biases & prejudices. The Backfire Effect is the psychological process of rejecting all other pertinent facts
which counter ones case, beliefs, biases & prejudices.
This idiotic article offers excellent examples of both. This "article" is case-in-point of "journalistic" maniuplation....the enemy of truth and
knowledge.
B is overoptimistic. On the one hand, he overestimates Tronald's strategic abilities. It is
to be assumed that his surprising decision has quite banal reasons. Even more important is
that he considers the Neocons already outmaneuvered. The probability is quite high that these
people have any plans to torpedo the retreat. One false flag attack is enough and everything
is different again. The negative reaction in the European capitals is also significant. That
plays into their cards. And should it not be possible, contrary to expectations, to stage
something 'useful' in Syria or elsewhere nearby, there is still the possibility of bringing
down the president at home. Their is the 'legal' approach. The man has probably committed
more crimes than there are paragraphs in the usa. And if that's not feasible in the short
term, you can still organize an attempted assassination.
I would be happy if things went as smoothly as b imagines, but I doubt it.
this has the distinct smell of bullshit to me...that said, i have noticed that trump - due to
his stupidity and/or that of his advisors - will do something for the wrong reason but have
it turn out as a good thing completely by accident. Taking this all at face value, the recent saudi PR disaster (as opposed to their daily
disasters which receive zero media coverage) may have helped. Between MbS and Adelson he was
hardly "allowed" to have a rational plan for Syria or the region in general. It seemed Israel
was - as usual - constantly instigating with illegal airstrikes (against phantom Iranians)
with the hope that Syria and/or Iran and/or Hezbollah would retaliate and then - as usual -
the Americans would jump in and do the whole conflagration thing to protect their asshole
friend.
Israel has always been the 5'1'' guy at the bar talking smack to everyone knowing his
6'7'' MMA brother was a few feet away to save him from his own prick behavior. Speaking of which, the arrival of s300s put somewhat of a kibosh on their hijinks for now
and getting a Russian plane shot down with that nonsense put them in the corner for a tiny
bit of a time-out. Turkey is also big as you mention. They played the Khashoggi story like a well-tuned
violin and they have zero problem with using their own proxies against the US/KSA/GCC
ones...that's what this "civil war" always was, after all. Erdogan has also - on the surface
- kept Israel in the "frienemies" column and doesn't seem as beholden to their insane
interests as the atlanticist crowd.
i just wonder if this is less "get them out" than "move the chess pieces somewhere else".
though in the hands of bolton and his ilk it's more like checkers. after all, the US has
covert troops in roughly 2/3 of the countries in the world and the DoD would have zero issues
with outright lying about a few JSOC monkeys running around syria under the radar.
gotta love the timing at least. with everyone in DC going on their extended holidays soon
there won't be many folks around to piss and whine about this. though maybe they'll spend
their time by the campfire in their plush hamptons cabins spinning future tales about
"Iranian Collusion".
Why now? Following the loss of life in the Israeli-instigated shoot down of the Russian Sig
Int aircraft, the Russian military have demanded and received a greater say in how the Syrian
operation is run. The means primarily the political phase of tolerating loss to maintain a
political advantage is over and there will be no more Russian troop losses without payback.
Russian military advisors have been dispatched to every SAA and Iranian troop concentration.
The release of S-300s to Syria control, and the explicit statement of an airport for an
airport regarding Israel make it clear that attacking aircraft will be shot down. SAA units
have been placed right on the boundary of the US self-declared zone around al Tanf. The US
troops there and elsewhere in Syria are now effectively without air cover when the SAA
inevitably moves towards them. So the US political position is declare victory and leave
before US forces really do get sent home in body bags. How far the Zionist components high up
in the US military will go along with this remains to be seen. I suspect the CIA will be
given open hand to send in whoever is foolish enough to go just to keep the shit stirred.
"Israel" touts itself as The Jewish State. It is therefore laughable to attempt to concoct
an excuse to separate Jews from Zionism and Zionism from Jews.
This is *exactly* what Zionists want you to believe. It is the very premise behind their
concerted attempt to legislate against the BDS movement and public criticism of Israel's
crimes. After all, since it is "laughable" to separate anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism, any
expression of the former is perforce an expression of the latter. But they, and you, are
wrong.
With the withdrawal of the U.S. from Syria, and only quagmires left in Iraq and Afganistan,
Turkey will now assume the role of lead NATO nation in the Middle-East. The U.S. is
essentially finished as a ME power. Russia will assume the role of regional mediator, and the
era of ME destabilization may well be over for the foreseeable future.
After the next March's elections in the Ukraine turn into anarchy, and possibly civil war,
Europe will wash their hands of this mess. The U.S. will find itself an unsustainable
situation and be forced to pull out. Russia will be left to pick up the pieces there as
well.
The Globalist 'wet dream', of using the ME and Black Sea as the platform to destroy Russia
and then constrain China, is finished.
I agree with Blue@14 and Thierry Meyssan ( http://www.voltairenet.org/article204385.html)
that the U.S. will now turn to Latin America to consolidate whats left of its disintegrating
empire.
great news we cannot keep fighting israels wars those guys really have to man up and start
fighting for themselves.same goes for saudi arabia these schmucks have been sucking of the
tit of unkle sam for years.
all of this mess is perfect map making divide and conquer strategy of tension done by the psy
op masters the brits many generations ago. This is not so much a draw down more a relocation exercise in country or maybe out.
Columbia, venezuala, ukraine and even morocco are due some cia death squad escalations soon
Bernard, thank you for all the detailed information. I was quite skeptical that all this was
real. The increasing number of corporate media reports softened some of the skepticism, but
this report has me convinced and very hopeful. You must have a lot of good sources in the US
government and military to know about the heavy pushback over the weekend and its ultimate
collapse. The information on the disagreement between European command and CENTCOM is also
key.
I also wonder if this is partly a result of Trump's strengthened hand after holding the
Senate and what Alexander Mercouris insists was very favorable to Trump in the Cohen
sentencing statement. He says the statement gives no indication Trump even knew about a lot
of the stuff Cohen was doing. It was all Cohen self promotion, like attempting to get the
Kremlin involved in a hotel deal and getting brushed off. The payoffs were also Cohen's idea
and no indication he gave Trump any idea there were legal considerations.
I agree with the skeptics. It's not yet clear what this "pull-out" is all about but it is
unlikely to be what it seems. That this it that person disagrees with Trump doesn't indicate much. The Obama psy-op
scolded us and the Trump psy-op distracts with kayfabe.
"But if the hope is that Turkey will end its relations with Russia and Iran the outcome will
be disappointing. Turkey depends on Russian and Iranian gas and as export markets. After the
attempted coup against him Erdogan does not trust the U.S. side. Moreover, the position that
gives him the most flexibility and leverage is between the two 'blocks', both of which will
continue to court him. He will continue to vacillate between them to get the most from both
sides."
This is the key difference between Erdogan and Ukrainian leaders of the last 15 years. One is
quite a political animal, the others are a bunch of greedy idiots that couldn't choose the
superior international position even if their lives depended on it. Had they gone for such a
middle ground without siding entirely with West or Russia, there wouldn't be rebels occupying
whole areas in the East, and Ukraine might actually have kept Crimea.
If we connect some dots in this episode trump vs the neocons, one has to ponder if maybe the
Canadian surprise arrest of the Huwai heiress (orchestrated by Bolton?) abruptly after
Trump's "good" G20 meeting with Xi was enough to piss him off enough to not only shoot back
but kick their legs out from under and go after their prized possession of the Syria opp.
Maybe a tipping point? Mattis out.. can we only whisper Bolton next?
@1 "with no room for the native population, especially the native American working class"
Are you saying that you and the rest of the burgoise WASP fanatics are relinquishing your
genocidal claim to the country now called the USA? Are you arguing for less immiseration, a
right of self determination for the first nations?
I rather suspect you mean you think someone owes you something. It's easy to see why
you're afraid of people who are nicer, cleaner, smarter, braver and harder working than you
and your beer guzzling pals. Please go back to your ancestral home - that wouldn't be the
Ukraine by any chance?
You can't trust any of them to do what they say or to adhere to any consistent behavior. There is one consistency to be
trusted - that is the decline of the commons in the USA and everywhere else in the world. We must remember that Trump greatly
admired John Bolton, mentioning him by name as representing great FP expertise. Then he hired the rotten SOB. Along with every
other destructive SOB he could employ.
Bolton says he agrees with Trump on Syria withdrawal? Makes no sense. Bolton hates
everybody except Yahoo and Lieberman. (Though Bolton did enjoy Plato's Retreat - back in the day.) Syria is a lynch pin in the
dissolution of the ME as we know it FOR the expansion of Greater Israel.
Excellent
thread tweeted by a Syrian in Syria , although it's now @5 hours old. As he notes, the
situation's very fluid as Trump's call took everyone in region by surprise. Fawaz @56's hypothetical makes a lot of sense as something had to flip Trump's switch. The
great fear now being published by neocon mouthpieces is Afghanistan withdrawal. Both the
Murray and Escobar items contain some interesting bits related to Afghanistan.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Dec 20, 2018 5:13:16 PM |
link
Here in the UK this should be a big story as we have meddled there as well, but no, the BIG
story is some persons unknown flying drones over Gatwick airport and shutting it down. Nobody
seems to have heard of a shotgun and this nonsense has gone on all day. The unkind may say
that this is a diversion to stop us thinking about what looks to be an American withdrawal
from Syria, especially after all the vitriol HMG has spat at Assad in recent years. Jus' sayin'
Scotch Bingeington , Dec 20, 2018 5:15:34 PM |
link
Like firing a smoke grenade into a hornets' nest. What a priceless sight. The atlanticist
scum over here in Germany are really at a loss, flat on their backs. Well done, Donald!
And well done, B! TJ 62 mentions RT's CrossTalk, and I've seen you getting referenced on
ZeroHedge, Craig Murray's, Germany's Telepolis lately... Nice!
Circe | 9 Agree a bigger worser heinous plan, is a Trump trademark. Bardi | 11 Trump
surprise to Putin fits Trojan expectation.. Jonathan H | 11:03:49 AM ending globalization
c\n\b done ALA there exists the monopoly powers of copyright and patent and Privatization
because these are profits earned by eliminating competition.. denial by law, or removal by
Military, regime change, assassination, etc..
It is these three separate objects of power (copyright, patent, and privatization) that
have enabled the Zionist to rule the globe since 1945
Eliminate the power created from thin air by rule of law, and Zionist Fat Cat Empire deflates
to 1950 best man wins competitive capitalism. In the case of natural resources, monopoly
power is established by OPEC type organizations, EPA permitting power, military force, and
regime change techniques.
All of a sudden the Saudis stopped paying YPG monthly paychecks. How come?
Because President Erdogan caught Mr. Salman (and Kushner?) red-handed?
The Khashoggi case is on national media every other day here in Turkey. I guess no pay no game for Trump. Plus, he might wish to keep his son-in-law away from the
spotlights as Mr. Erdogan is coming up with increasingly more details about the Khashoggi
murder.
Fernando Martinez , Dec 20, 2018 5:35:08 PM |
link
Trump is besieged on all sides. He is a fighter and he will surprise us all with his desire
to do what he thinks is right for USA. I really think people don't understand what he is all
about.
This was a golden chance to do things differently and start fresh in America.
The first mistake was Trump's though.
He should have fired everyone on day ONE.
Yates, Comey, McCabe, Orr...Everybody.
Put in Interim appointments and not dealt with anyone from the Bush, Obama and Clinton
admins.
He fucked up.
He shouldn't have put in Jeff Sessions or Crazy Haley.
All new people from conservative institutions.
Kavanaugh I knew was a mistake from day one.
But the Dems actually got him nominated with their insanity.
The Dems are the cancer, they do do some good things but they make me sick with their vitriol
and shady shit
At least I can still say Hilary ain't Pres.
Erdogan threatened Trump and Trump backed down. To me that is the most logical reason for this but that also means it will be much harder
for Trump to back out of this decision and much harder for the Borg to make their case
because they are risking losing Turkey for a strategically weak and militarily vulnerable
position in Eastern Syria. This could certainly have something to do with Khashoggi too and
perhaps more accurately protecting MBS.
The question: whatever did Erdogan use to threaten Trump?
I am supremely impressed with the way that events have unfolded over the last few months.
It speaks not so much of deliberate planning as supremely skillful dancing while a random
music plays. A bloody mess in Idleb was postponed, which led the west to lose its footing and
skip the beat of events. Concurrently, Erdogan was given a set of challenges to accomplish or
fail at, and in the end he needed more time, as one could have guessed, and was given it, as
one could also guess. Somewhere his windows were closing all the while, even as he was being
fed new opportunities from Eurasia.
And now - although it may be years before we have enough details to understand the forces
behind the scenes here - a major pivot has been enacted by the US, which I suspect could not
have happened one day sooner than it has. And quietly the world will see it as the major
pivot that it is. And Russia's hand is nowhere to be seen in any of this, although its
presence in all of it seems compelling. Major gains of warfare have been achieved in the last
few months, with no shots fired by those who orchestrated these gains.
What a stunning way to fight a war! How good that the Asian Century is coming on so
strong, so we can learn the arts of subtlety again, and put aside the childish things of
western delusion.
In a theater where one almost has to use peripheral vision simply to make out the outline
of forces at work, Erdogan increasingly strikes me as a solid and stable force. Yes he will
vacillate between east and west - although "oscillate" might be a better word, since
vacillate suggests uncertainty, and I suspect all doubt is gone from Erdogan's mind - and
this is only to leverage the greatest gain from each side, as they both play for his
commitment.
The difference is that the west still thinks it can secure Turkey's alliance, while Russia
knows that Turkey has already secretly forsworn that allegiance. I'm sure that Erdogan sees
that Turkey will now be what she always has been and should be, an independent bridge between
east and west, trading with both sides - a key node in the ancient Silk Road now reborn, and
a modern energy hub dealing Russian gas to Europe.
Erdogan's oscillation is like the pendulum swing that grows smaller and smaller until
everyone can see that he is actually motionless.
Here is the
Q&A exchange regarding Trump's announcement during Putin's "traditional end-of-year
meeting we call a press conference:"
"Rachel Marsden: President Putin, Rachel Marsden with the Tribune Publishing out of
Chicago, United States.
"Yesterday, President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of the American troops from
Syria. He also announced that, in his opinion, the United States defeated ISIS in Syria, he
made that very clear.
"What is your position with respect to his statements, both on the withdrawal of the
American troops from Syria and also with his statement regarding the defeat of ISIS by the
United States?
"And, secondly, do you have concern that the American troops will remain in some form?
There has been much discussion, for example, around the presence, potentially, of contractors
in other jurisdictions where the United States is either out of militarily or might want to
be out of militarily but in a more discreet way.
"Thank you very much.
Vladimir Putin:
"As concerns the defeat of ISIS, overall I agree with the President of the
United States. I already said that we achieved significant progress in the fight against
terrorism in that territory and delivered major strikes on ISIS in Syria.
"There is a risk of these and similar groups migrating to neighboring regions and
Afghanistan, to other countries, to their home countries, and they are partly returning.
"It is a great danger for all of us, including Russia, the United States, Europe, Asian
countries, including Central Asia. We know that, we understand the risk fully. Donald is
right about that, and I agree with him.
"As concerns the withdrawal of American troops, I do not know what that is. The United
States have been present in, say, Afghanistan, for how long? Seventeen years, and every year
they talk about withdrawing the troops. But they are still there. This is my second
point.
"Third. So far, we have not seen any evidence of their withdrawal but I suppose it is
possible, the more so because we are progressing towards a political settlement. The current
issue on the agenda is building a constitutional committee.
"By the way, when we met in Istanbul – I mean Russia, Turkey, France and Germany
– we agreed to make every possible effort to create this constitutional committee and
Russia, for its part, has done everything in its power for this to happen.
"As strange as it may seem, we fully agreed on the list of members with President
al-Assad, who designated 50 people and was involved in selecting 50 more from civil society.
Despite the fact that he is not happy with everything, he agreed with this.
"Turkey, which represents the interests of the opposition, also agreed. Iran agreed. We
submitted the list to the UN and, as Minister Lavrov reported to me just yesterday,
unexpectedly, prompted by our partners – Germany, France and the United States –
UN representatives (Mr de Mistura) decided to wait and see.
"I do not understand what is going on there but at any rate, I want to believe that this
work is in its final stage. Maybe not by the end of this year but in the beginning of the
next the list will be agreed and this will open the next stage of the settlement, which will
be political settlement.
"Is the presence of American troops required there? I do not think it is. However, let us
not forget that their presence, the presence of your troops, is illegitimate as it was not
approved by a UN Security Council resolution. The military contingent can only be there under
a resolution of the UN Security Council or at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian
Government. Russian troops were invited by the Syrian Government. The United States did not
get either of these so if they decide to withdraw their troops, it is the right decision.
"There is another very important component in this process. Despite all the disagreements,
our specialists, our military personnel, security services and foreign ministries have
established a rather constructive dialogue to address acute issues in combating terrorism in
Syria. Overall, we are satisfied with our cooperation."
A very crafty reply, IMO. It would, however, be very interesting to know just what the
Kremlin's Braintrust's actual reaction was to Trump's tweet and the underlying political
circumstances that led to it. Also, the fact of the UN hindering the formation of the
Constitutional Committee shows continued CIA meddling. I'll see if Lavrov was asked for his
reaction and post his reply if one's available.
Thanks for your reply! I liked your description of a sort of Musical Chairs. I also now
think Russia knew what Khashoggi's fate would be before anyone other than MbS, thus the
appearance of orchestration. The history of this entire episode would be a pleasure to write
if one could gain access to all the actors--provided they're willing to talk after a discrete
passage of time.
As Putin said, the next step is the political settlement, which will be arrived at, while
the remaining terrorists are routed. I see Mattis is on the way out, so I wonder how long it
will take for Pompeo and Bolton to follow him along with the Camp Followers. I also found it
interesting that Putin addressed Trump as Donald in his long answer to the reporter from
Chicago; I should watch the video to see if there's a bit of devilish gleam in Putin's eyes
as he says that knowing how the Russophobes will react. But as Putin also noted regarding
Afghanistan, the game isn't up just yet.
Mattis' resignation gives me some hope that Trump is serious about withdrawing from Syria.
Trump is so conflicting though - why abandon the treaty with Iran if you're not going to, as
Bolton and Mattis say, "stop them in Syria" (which is as ridiculous as "stopping Russia" in
that country).
Plus, he's been so hawkish on Iran in other areas as well, such as the treaty and the
subsequent sanctions - even threatening to punish Europe. Maybe he just likes to put
sanctions on people, or maybe he has less control over that? Don't the sanctions come from
Congress as well? Ah, regardless, he seems to brandish sanctions like a weapon, clearly he's
in favor of them. Even sanctioning North Korea ever more harshly. Maybe it's just all because
he's like to bully people.
Posted by: bjd | Dec 20, 2018 3:28:46 PM | 54:
If Bolton OK'd this, prepare for some Christmas surprise (in Bethlehem, Damascus,
wherever).
Yeah, that is of huge concern to me as well. I wonder how Israel fits into this picture. I've
seen reports that Israel has been more hesitant to bomb Syria as of late. I can't imagine
they'd be happy about the withdrawal of the US troops, unless this means people are preparing
for larger scale air operations and the US wants its exposed ground force out of the way.
It's pure speculation, and probably holding up the propagandized personality of Mattis,
but maybe his departure is based on the reason that he does not support a undefined poorly
thought-out aggressive Israeli air war against Iranian positions in Syria. That would, I
think, in part explain the extreme pushback Trump has been getting for these actions from
Hollywood and the media. I find it hard to believe that so many people desperately want the
US to stick around in Syria out of their own accord - the war against "terrorism" there has
pretty much died off over the past few months, if not the whole year. Aside from those ISIS groups who were
moved to Idlib with the aid of the US, of course - the ones who recently perpetrated a
gas attack.
US involvement in Syria goes way beyond boots on the ground . 4000 troops/contractors being
removed with as many if not more on the border wont change much. Plenty of strings still to
pull.
The true motives for the "change" are not clear. If you want to believe its your boy Trunp
manning up and taking on those bad neocons he himself hired, feel free to do so. In this
Discordian world of Trump we can only wonder what chaos is being planned that is behind an
announcement for an orderly pull out.
Syria never seemed to be worth all the effort unless they could have brought down Assad.
Perhaps its as simple as being satisfied with keeping the north in a NATO ally hands and
keeping the south Iran free. Perhaps he intends to divert the savings from Syria and using
those funds to build the wall. Perhaps he has another target in mind. Perhaps nothing will
change and another FF is in the works to keep us in.
Putin reminds us the US announced withdrawal from Afghanistan a number of times and still
remains. So we can only see what happens.
Of course, if its real we all know what happens to Presidents who wind down wars
especially before creating or escalating a war of their own. Bullet, impeachment or early
retirement (1 term). Kennedy, Nixon, Bush I, Carter and Clinton all say hi.
This is a must watch Jimmy Dore show, Professor Jeffrey Sachs stuns the TV panel with some
home truths about the war in Syria and how the CIA and Saudi Arabia set up regime change.
Dore is brilliant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2TRzA2ezk
It is a huge Xmas present that Trump is offerring to Erdogan.
Now Erdogan can claim that the USA bowed to his threats and he will get a few points in his
popularity at a time when Turkey's economy is faltering and shaking, despite the financial
support of Qatar.
Now the Kurds have no choice than to beg Bashar al Assad to take them back. Because Bashar al
Assad wants Turkey to stop supporting the FSA, he will press the Kurds to abandon the SDF,
thus leaving the FSA isolated and vulnerable to ISIS attacks. Because the Turkish army has
always been reluctant to face ISIS, it will probably let the FSA be decimated. Now, who will
push ISIS to attack the weakened SDF?
Sounds like Mattis resigned because of a disagreement with Trump which, given the timing, was
likely the announced withdrawal from Syria. Now if only Bolton was as honorable!
Somewhat OT but germane just the same: Another Q&A from Putin's annual meeting regarding
the possibility of Nuclear War:
"Anton Vernitsky: Mr President, as Soviet-era children, all of us feared a nuclear war
very much. As you remember, various songs dealt with this issue. One of them had the
following lyrics: 'Sunny world: Yes, yes, yes; nuclear explosion: No, no, no.'
"Vladimir Putin: Are you not afraid today?
"Anton Vernitsky: Forty years have passed, and major media outlets on both sides of the
ocean are beginning to publish a scenario for a nuclear exchange between Russia and the
United States. The word 'war' is sounding more and more often at household level, in
kitchens.
"Mr President, how can you calm down my little son who, just like me, also fears a nuclear
war today? What words and actions can calm us all down?
"Vladimir Putin: You know, I think you are right.
"I just thought that all this, including the danger of such developments in the world, is
now being hushed up and played down to some extent. It seems impossible or something that is
not so important. At the same time, if, God forbid, something like this happens, it might
destroy the whole of civilisation or perhaps the entire planet.
"These issues are therefore serious, and it is a great pity that there is such a tendency
to underestimate the problem, and that this tendency is probably becoming more pronounced.
What are the current distinguishing features and dangers?
"First, all of us are now witnessing the disintegration of the international system for
arms control and for deterring the arms race. This process is taking place after the United
States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that, as I have already noted a
thousand times, was the cornerstone in the sphere of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and
deterring the arms race.
"After that, we were forced to respond by developing new weapons systems that could breach
these ABM systems. Now, we hear that Russia has gained an advantage. Yes, this is true. So
far, the world has no such weapons systems. Leading powers will develop them, but, as yet
they do not exist.
"In this sense, there are certain advantages. But, speaking of the entire strategic
balance, this is just an element of deterrence and for equalizing parities. This is just the
preservation of parity, and nothing more.
"They are now about to take another step and withdraw from the INF Treaty. What will
happen? It is very difficult to imagine how the situation will unfold. What if these missiles
show up in Europe? What are we supposed to do then?
"Of course, we will need to take some steps to ensure our safety. And they should not
whine later that we are allegedly trying to gain certain advantages. We are not. We are
simply trying to maintain the balance and ensure our security.
"The same goes for the START III Treaty, which expires in 2021. There are no talks on this
issue. Is it because no one is interested, or believes it is necessary? Fine, we can live
with that.
"We will ensure our security. We know how to do it. But in general, for humanity, this is
very bad, because this takes us to a very dangerous line.
"Finally, there is another circumstance I cannot ignore. There is a trend to lower the
threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. There are plans to create low-impact nuclear
charges, which translates to tactical rather than global use. Such ideas are coming from
Western analysts who say it is okay to use such weapons. However, lowering the threshold can
lead to a global nuclear disaster. This is one danger we are facing today.
"The second is the use of non-nuclear ballistic missiles. True, our US partners seem to
have dropped this idea, but it still exists. What does it mean?
"Suppose, a ballistic missile is launched, nuclear or non-nuclear. The missile attack
warning system identifies the launch and the launch site, and, seconds later, determines the
flight path and the possible warhead landing area. This is all on the verge of a possible
error. It is terrible, and we cannot take it that far. Nevertheless, such an idea of using
non-nuclear ballistic missiles exists.
"Suppose, a submarine fired a ballistic missile from the World Ocean, but who the hell
knows if it is nuclear or not, go figure. This is very dangerous. All of that is being widely
discussed, which is dangerous.
"However, I believe humanity has enough common sense and enough of a sense of
self-preservation not to take these things to the extreme."
IMO, Putin's reply isn't the sort leading to a "calm" reaction. Rather, additional fears
are raised despite the reassurances. Was the question planted (note the reference to "40
years")? If not, it ought to have been as it relays a distinct message to the Outlaw US
Empire and its vassals about the dangerous caldron they're stirring--and Putin's correct to
point his finger at them. The required discussion on this topic is one that's being
hampered/delayed by the CIA/MI-6-orchestrated Russophobia--a massive provocation that ought
to cease tomorrow but won't.
Haveing conditioned the western public to hate Russia using 'integrity initiative' 'Atlantic
Council ' extra, preparing in advance for conflict with Russia. The withdraw of US troops
from Syria is a false dawn. The Middle East has been put back a thousand years !
The fascist US will now turn it's attention to Russia. When you unleash the nazi monster it
soon becomes uncontrollable as now. And demands fresh innocent blood. Have read the comments
above I conclude we know it but can't face it.
Never forgive a bully it will be taken as weakness, never believe a bully it will be taken as
gullibility!!!
Woodwards book on Trump recounts a scene where the president orders Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis to kill Assad . "Let's F 'ingkill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the F'ing lot of them,"
According to Woodward, Mattis ignored the order, or he didn't perceive it as a direct order,
and instead presented the president with a menu of more limited options. Bolton is a happy
man with Mattis leaving
Bolton supposedly is pushing a plan to get Turkey into a confrontation with Russia. Trump
offered Erdogan delivery of F35 fighters starting in 3 weeks and supposedly bought off
Erdogan with the US withdrawal. So US withdrawal is a Russian trap as any engagement between
Russia and Turkey could bring the US and the rest of Nato in to defend Turkey
Special forces and some private military companies will likely remain and protect US
interests and observe. US Special Representative for Syria earlier this month said they were considering the
creation of an Iraqi-style "no-fly zone" following a possible withdrawal of its grounds from
there
Again, the subject is a Peace Treaty, this one between Russia and Japan. I've followed this
issue at a bit of a distance not knowing what the problems are in its accomplishment.
Putin
provided the answer in his meeting today to a Japanese journalist. I won't copy/paste the
entire exchange as I have earlier; interested folks can click the link I provided and read
the entire exchange. What follows is the meat:
"You spoke about the deployment of the US military infrastructure in Japan, but it is
already there, the largest US base is in Okinawa, it has been there for decades, as we
know. "Now, about Japan's ability to take part in this decision-making. To us, this is an
unclear, closed issue. We do not understand the level of Japan's sovereignty in making
such decisions ." [My Emphasis]
Putin is saying the hindrance is due to Japan being an occupied nation that doesn't have
100% control of its sovereignty, particularly concerning defense. That for a treaty of peace
to be signed, Japan must free itself from that hindrance. Will Japan join Eurasia or will it remain an outlier like Australia is the actual
question.
The US just spent years trying to create a Kurdish state on turkey's border and it backed
(maybe organized) a coup attempt against Erdogan.
Do you think the Turks trust the US? The Turks are not about to attack Russia to
ingratiate the neocons for any reason and especially after they supported the Kurds.. i
believe the CFR was pushing for a Kurd state composed of large pieces of turkey including a
slice of it leading to the sea. Other think tanks offer a similar vision. I'm pretty sure the
Turkish gov is aware of it. The threat of mischief could come from a gulllenist in the Turk
military but Erdogan purged most of them, certainly the powerful ones.
The Kurdish statelet idea is of Zionist manufacture, aimed at reducing Syria to a rump
state while diminishing Turkish abilities. The action now seems to be moving to the waters
around Cyprus and the NatGas located there. IMO, Zionistan has reached its acme and will
begin its decline due to its many internal issues and corruption -- all in addition to its
self-generated problems with Palestine and Lebanon.
Mattis' departure lends some credibility to the withdrawal story, but if his replacement is
another Bolton clone that might not be worth it.
@pft 86 - Erdogan of course hates the Kurds and is probably fine fighting them, but would
he take on Russia? Would he trust Nato to back him up militarily if shooting starts with
Russia (I wouldn't). Without Iranian or Russian gas it could be a long, cold winter in
Turkey.
"So US withdrawal is a Russian trap as any engagement between Russia and Turkey could
bring the US and the rest of Nato in to defend Turkey"
A clash of arms between Russia and Turkey INSIDE Syria does not trigger any treaty
obligation viz. NATO or the USA. The NATO treaty is quite explicit on that point: the mutual-defence articles are only
applicable to armed conflict on the territory of a NATO country, or in the North Atlantic, or
in the Mediterranean Sea. Syria is not any of those.
Nothing stops anyone from "coming to the aid" of Turkey in such a clash - scoundrels can
always flock together - but nobody will be under any treaty obligation to do so.
Think of it this way: nothing stopped the USA from "coming to the aid" of the South
Vietnamese government in 1968, but that bit of overseas adventurism did not oblige any NATO
country to through their hat into the ring alongside Uncle Sam.
The same thing here: nothing stops Turkey from sending an expeditionary force into Syria, but
no NATO country is obliged to join them if anyone fights back.
A quick question that springs to mind: how many of the "coalition of the willing" is still in
Iraq/Syria alongside the Americans? Are the Dutchies still there, or did they skedaddle a long time ago?
The Aussies? Are they still flying FA-18's over the combat zone?
If they are then they must be rushing for the exits right about..... now.
""The military campaign against Islamic State continues," French army spokesman Patrik Steiger
told a news conference. "At this stage, the announcement by the American president has no
impact on France's ongoing participation (in the coalition).""
So the French need a talking to about their illegal presence in Syria unless they are
going to take the mantle of empire over from the US and lead this illegal coalition.
Good Article. The damage has been done to Syria for a generation, maybe much longer. It
possibly forces a Russia Turkey confrontation at some point in the future. It is a small
reversal in the overstretched empire we have become.
Trump has announced this before only to be immediately overridden by his "advisors". At
this point he has nothing to lose anyway. Might as well dig in for the long two years of
shelling from all sides. Bold grand policy strokes work when the media is stroking you in the
rump.
ISIS was created by the US as a part of its divide and conquer strategy. General Flynn blew
the whistle on it which is why he has been vilified. Flynn spoke the truth on ISIS and lied
to the FBI! Horrors. Now ISIS has been "defeated" and the US Quixote can focus on other
windmills. Except now comes the Syria encore, Afghanistan. Chalk up another loss for team
USA.
The trouble with CIA democrats is not that they are stupid, but that that are evil.
Hillary proved to be really destructive witch during her Obama stunt as the Secretary of State. Destroyed Libya and Ukraine,
which is no small feat.
Notable quotes:
"... The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided. ..."
"... She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League. ..."
The Grauniad just quoted a tweet from a predictably OUTRAGED @HillaryClinton:
Actions have consequences, and whether we're in Syria or not, the people who want to
harm us are there & at war. Isolationism is weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous.
Playing into Russia & Iran's hands is foolish. This President is putting our national
security at grave risk.
This from the woman who almost singlehandedly (i.e. along with David Cameron and Sarkovy)
destroyed Libya and allowed -- if not encouraged -- the flow of US weapons to go into the
hands of ISIS allies in the US-Saudi-Israeli obsession with toppling Assad regardless of the
consequences. As Justin Raimondo wrote in
Antiwar.com in 2015:
The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State
Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all
other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked
the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and
al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the
ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided.
This crazy policy was an extension of our regime change operation in Libya, a.k.a.
"Hillary's War," where the US – "leading from behind" – and a coalition of our
Western allies and the Gulf protectorates overthrew Muammar Qaddafi. There, too, we
empowered radical Islamists with links to al-Qaeda affiliates – and then used them to
ship weapons to their Syrian brothers, as another document uncovered by Judicial Watch
shows.
After HRC's multiple foreign policy fiascos she is the last person who should be
commenting on this matter.
a different chris, December 21, 2018 at 11:50 am
> the people who want to harm us are there & at war
Sounds like then they are too busy to harm us? She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League.
Russiagate, what a nonsensical concept. Constantly shifting narrative. (1) OMG, they hacked
voting machines! (2) OMG, they hacked DNC servers! (3) OMG, someone talked to a Russian!
"... In the wake of the summit, the neoliberal Resistance, like some multi-headed mythical creature in the throes of acute amphetamine psychosis, started spastically jabbering about "treason" and "traitors," and more or less demanding that Trump be tried, and taken out and shot on the White House lawn. ..."
As my regular readers will probably recall, according to my personal, pseudo-Chinese zodiac,
2017 was " The Year of
the Headless Liberal Chicken ." This year, having given it considerable thought, and having
consulted the I Ching, and assorted other oracles, I'm designating 2018 "The Year of Putin-Nazi
Paranoia."
... ... ...
Back in America, millions of liberals and other Russia-and-Trump-obsessives were awaiting the
Putin-Nazi Apocalypse , which despite the predictions of Resistance pundits had still, by
the Summer, failed to materialize. The corporate media were speculating that Putin's latest
"secret scheme" was for Trump to destroy the Atlantic alliance by arriving late for the G7
meeting. Or maybe Putin's secret scheme was to order Trump to sadistically lock up a bunch of
migrants in metal cages,
exactly as Obama had done before him but these were special Nazi cages! And Trump was
separating mothers and children, which, as General Michael Hayden reminded
us , was more or less exactly the same as Auschwitz!
Paul Krugman had apparently lost it , and was running around the offices of The New York
Times shrieking that "America as we know it is finished!"
Soros had been smuggled back into Europe to single-handedly thwart the Putin-Nazi plot to
"dominate the West," which he planned to do by canceling the Brexit (which Putin had obviously
orchestrated) and overthrowing the elected government of Italy (which, according to Soros, was
a Putin-Nazi front).
As if that wasn't paranoia-inducing enough, suddenly, Trump flew off to Helisnki to
personally meet with the Devil Himself. The neoliberal establishment went totally apeshit. A
columnist for The New York Times predicted that Trump, Putin, Le Pen, the AfD, and other such
Nazis were secretly forming something called "the Alliance of Authoritarian and Reactionary
States," and intended to disband the European Union, and NATO, and impose international martial
law and start ethnically cleansing the West of migrants. That, or Trump and Putin were simply
using the summit as cover to attend some Nazi-equestrian homosexual orgy, which The Times took
pains to illustrate by creating a little animated film depicting Trump and Putin as lovers. In
any event, Jonathan Chait was certain that Trump had been a "Russian intelligence asset" since
at least as early as 1987, and was going to Helsinki to "meet his handler."
In the wake of the summit, the neoliberal Resistance, like some multi-headed mythical
creature in the throes of acute amphetamine psychosis, started spastically jabbering about
"treason" and "traitors," and more or less demanding that Trump be tried, and taken out and
shot on the White House lawn. A frenzy of neo-McCarthyism followed. Liberals started
accusing people of being "traitorous agents of Trump and Moscow," and openly calling for a CIA
coup, because we were "facing a national security emergency!" A devastating Russian
cyber-attack was due to begin at any moment. National Intelligence Director Dan Coats
personally assured the Associated Press that the little "Imminent Russia Attack" lights he had
on his desk were "blinking red."
... ... ...
So here's wishing my Russia-and-Trump-obsessed readers a merry, teeth-clenching,
anus-puckering Christmas and a somewhat mentally-healthier New Year! Me, I'm looking forward to
discovering how batshit crazy things can get I have a feeling we ain't seen nothing yet.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine &
Cormorant. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.
"... In the wake of the summit, the neoliberal Resistance, like some multi-headed mythical creature in the throes of acute amphetamine psychosis, started spastically jabbering about "treason" and "traitors," and more or less demanding that Trump be tried, and taken out and shot on the White House lawn. ..."
As my regular readers will probably recall, according to my personal, pseudo-Chinese zodiac,
2017 was " The Year of
the Headless Liberal Chicken ." This year, having given it considerable thought, and having
consulted the I Ching, and assorted other oracles, I'm designating 2018 "The Year of Putin-Nazi
Paranoia."
... ... ...
Back in America, millions of liberals and other Russia-and-Trump-obsessives were awaiting the
Putin-Nazi Apocalypse , which despite the predictions of Resistance pundits had still, by
the Summer, failed to materialize. The corporate media were speculating that Putin's latest
"secret scheme" was for Trump to destroy the Atlantic alliance by arriving late for the G7
meeting. Or maybe Putin's secret scheme was to order Trump to sadistically lock up a bunch of
migrants in metal cages,
exactly as Obama had done before him but these were special Nazi cages! And Trump was
separating mothers and children, which, as General Michael Hayden reminded
us , was more or less exactly the same as Auschwitz!
Paul Krugman had apparently lost it , and was running around the offices of The New York
Times shrieking that "America as we know it is finished!"
Soros had been smuggled back into Europe to single-handedly thwart the Putin-Nazi plot to
"dominate the West," which he planned to do by canceling the Brexit (which Putin had obviously
orchestrated) and overthrowing the elected government of Italy (which, according to Soros, was
a Putin-Nazi front).
As if that wasn't paranoia-inducing enough, suddenly, Trump flew off to Helisnki to
personally meet with the Devil Himself. The neoliberal establishment went totally apeshit. A
columnist for The New York Times predicted that Trump, Putin, Le Pen, the AfD, and other such
Nazis were secretly forming something called "the Alliance of Authoritarian and Reactionary
States," and intended to disband the European Union, and NATO, and impose international martial
law and start ethnically cleansing the West of migrants. That, or Trump and Putin were simply
using the summit as cover to attend some Nazi-equestrian homosexual orgy, which The Times took
pains to illustrate by creating a little animated film depicting Trump and Putin as lovers. In
any event, Jonathan Chait was certain that Trump had been a "Russian intelligence asset" since
at least as early as 1987, and was going to Helsinki to "meet his handler."
In the wake of the summit, the neoliberal Resistance, like some multi-headed mythical
creature in the throes of acute amphetamine psychosis, started spastically jabbering about
"treason" and "traitors," and more or less demanding that Trump be tried, and taken out and
shot on the White House lawn. A frenzy of neo-McCarthyism followed. Liberals started
accusing people of being "traitorous agents of Trump and Moscow," and openly calling for a CIA
coup, because we were "facing a national security emergency!" A devastating Russian
cyber-attack was due to begin at any moment. National Intelligence Director Dan Coats
personally assured the Associated Press that the little "Imminent Russia Attack" lights he had
on his desk were "blinking red."
... ... ...
So here's wishing my Russia-and-Trump-obsessed readers a merry, teeth-clenching,
anus-puckering Christmas and a somewhat mentally-healthier New Year! Me, I'm looking forward to
discovering how batshit crazy things can get I have a feeling we ain't seen nothing yet.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine &
Cormorant. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.
In his recent article "Averting
World Conflict with China" Ron Unz has come up with an intriguing suggestion for the Chinese
government to turn the tables on the December 1 st arrest of Meng Wanzhou in Canada.
Canada detained Mrs. Meng, CFO of the world's largest telecoms equipment manufacturer Huawei,
at the request of the United States so she could be extradited to New York to face charges that
she and her company had violated U.S. sanctions on Iran. The sanctions in question had been
imposed unilaterally by Washington and it is widely believed that the Trump Administration is
sending a signal that when the ban on purchasing oil from Iran comes into full effect in May
there will be no excuses accepted from any country that is unwilling to comply with the U.S.
government's demands. Washington will exercise universal jurisdiction over those who violate
its sanctions, meaning that foreign officials and heads of corporations that continue to deal
with Iran can be arrested when traveling internationally and will be extradited to be tried in
American courts.
There is, of course, a considerable downside to arresting a top executive of a leading
foreign corporation from a country that is a major U.S. trading partner and which also, inter
alia, holds a considerable portion of the U.S. national debt. Ron Unz has correctly noted the "
extraordinary gravity of this international incident and its potential for altering the course
of world history." One might add that Washington's demands that other nations adhere to its
sanctions on third countries opens up a Pandora's box whereby no traveling executives will be
considered safe from legal consequences when they do not adhere to policies being promoted by
the United States. Unz cites Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs as
describing it as "almost a U.S. declaration of war on China's business community." If
seizing and extraditing businessmen becomes the new normal those countries most affected will
inevitably retaliate in kind. China has already detained two traveling Canadians to pressure
Ottawa to release Mrs. Meng. Beijing is also contemplating some immediate retaliatory steps
against Washington to include American companies operating in China if she is extradited to the
U.S.
Ron Unz has suggested that Beijing might just want to execute a quid pro quo by pulling the
licenses of Sheldon Adelson's casinos operating in Macau, China and shutting them down, thereby
eliminating a major source of his revenue. Why go after an Israeli-American casino operator
rather than taking steps directly against the U.S. government? The answer is simple. Pressuring
Washington is complicated as there are many players involved and unlikely to produce any
positive results while Adelson
is the prime mover on much of the Trump foreign policy, though one hesitates to refer to it
as a policy at all.
Adelson is the world's leading diaspora Israel-firster and he has the ear of the president
of the United States, who reportedly speaks and meets with him regularly. And Adelson uses his
considerable financial resources to back up his words of wisdom. He is the fifteenth wealthiest man in America
with a reported fortune of $33 billion. He is the number one contributor to the GOP having
given $81 million in the last cycle. Admittedly that is chump change to him, but it is more
than enough to buy the money hungry and easily corruptible Republicans.
In a certain sense, Adelson has obtained control of the foreign policy of the political
party that now controls both the White House and the Senate, and his mission in life is to
advance Israeli interests. Among those interests is the continuous punishment of Iran, which
does not threaten the United States in any way, through employment of increasingly savage
sanctions and threats of violence, which brings us around to the arrest of Meng and the
complicity of Adelson in that process. Adelson's wholly owned talking head National Security
Adviser John Bolton reportedly had prior knowledge of the Canadian plans and may have actually
been complicit in their formulation. Adelson has also been the major force behind moving the
U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, has also convinced the Administration to stop its criticism of the
illegal Israeli settlements on Arab land and has been instrumental in cutting off all
humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. He prefers tough love when dealing with the Iranians,
advocating dropping
a nuclear bomb on Iran as a warning to the Mullahs of what more might be coming if they don't
comply with all the American and Israeli demands.
"No taxation without representation" is the cornerstone to the founding of the nation. Is
it not ?
Every Neocon Oligarch who Conspired to Defraud us into "war of aggression" should have ALL
their assets seized to pay for the costs of the wars they lied us into.
No more, no less.
Choosing to "Boycott Israel "may help the suffering Palestinians to some small degree, but
if anyone is serious about helping The UNITED STATES ..The highest priority should be SEIZING
the ASSETS of EVERY individual who LIED us into WAR.
The law is crystal clear on this ..and its on YOUR SIDE.
The people just need a referendum like "THE WAR FRAUD ACCOUNTABILITY ACT of 2020″
(retroactive to 2002.)
They just need to sign it and push it through .By "majority" mandate.
Why waste time boycotting Israel .When 300 million Americans are one step away from
rightfully taking back ALL their MONEY from every Neocon Oligarch who "conspired to defraud"
us into war ?
Think about how hard Americans have worked to build our country in 200 years we created
the most powerful and wealthy nation on the face of the earth.
Yet all that wealth has been Squandered, in a mere 17 years, because we were defrauded
into illegal wars of aggression.
Its not right.
Make THEM pay for the wars they lied us into.
Every penny.
Take back you solvency . Americans.
This is the smart play .its legal its just and its right there for you.
Flynn "treason" is not related to Russia probe and just confirm that Nueller in engaged in witch hunt.
I believe half of Senate and House of Representative might go to jail if they were dug with the ferocity Mueller digs Flynn's past.
So while Flynn behavior as Turkey lobbyist (BTW Turkey is a NATO country and not that different int his sense from the US -- and you
can name a lot of UK lobbyists in high echelons of the US government, starting with McCabe and Strzok) is reprehensible, this is still a witch hunt
When American law enforcement and intelligence officials, who carry Top Secret clearances and authority to collect intelligence
or pursue a criminal investigation, decide to employ lies and intimidation to silence or intimidates those who worked for Donald
Trump's Presidency, we see shadow of Comrage Stalin Great Terror Trials over the USA.
Former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn passes by members of the
media as he departs after his sentencing was delayed at U.S. District Court in
Washington, U.S., December 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
By Jan Wolfe and Ginger Gibson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge fiercely criticized President Donald
Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Tuesday for lying to
FBI agents in a probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and
delayed sentencing him until Flynn has finished helping prosecutors.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan told Flynn, a retired U.S. Army
lieutenant general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
that he had arguably betrayed his country. Sullivan also noted that Flynn had
operated as an undeclared lobbyist for Turkey even as he worked on Trump's
campaign team and prepared to be his White House national security adviser.
Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his December 2016
conversations with Sergei Kislyak, then Russia's ambassador in Washington,
about U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow by the administration of Trump's
Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, after Trump's election victory but before
he took office.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller, leading the investigation into possible
collusion between Trump's campaign team and Russia ahead of the election, had
asked the judge not to sentence Flynn to prison because he had already
provided "substantial" cooperation over the course of many interviews.
But Sullivan sternly told Flynn his actions were abhorrent, noting that
Flynn had also lied to senior White House officials, who in turn misled the
public. The judge said he had read additional facts about Flynn's behavior
that have not been made public.
At one point, Sullivan asked prosecutors if Flynn could have been charged
with treason, although the judge later said he had not been suggesting such a
charge was warranted.
"Arguably, you sold your country out," Sullivan told Flynn. "I'm not hiding
my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense."
Flynn, dressed in a suit and tie, showed little emotion throughout the
hearing, and spoke calmly when he confirmed his guilty plea and answered
questions from the judge.
Sullivan appeared ready to sentence Flynn to prison but then gave him the
option of a delay in his sentencing so he could fully cooperate with any
pending investigations and bolster his case for leniency. The judge told Flynn
he could not promise that he would not eventually sentence him to serve prison
time.
Flynn accepted that offer. Sullivan did not set a new date for sentencing
but asked Mueller's team and Flynn's attorney to give him a status report by
March 13.
Prosecutors said Flynn already had provided most of the cooperation he
could, but it was possible he might be able to help investigators further.
Flynn's attorney said his client is cooperating with federal prosecutors in a
case against Bijan Rafiekian, his former business partner who has been charged
with unregistered lobbying for Turkey.
Rafiekian pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to those charges in federal court
in Alexandria, Virginia. His trial is scheduled for Feb. 11. Flynn is
expected to testify.
Prosecutors have said Rafiekian and Flynn lobbied to
have Washington extradite a Muslim cleric who lives in the United States
and is accused by Turkey's government of backing a 2016 coup attempt. Flynn
has not been charged in that case.
'LOCK HER UP!'
Flynn was a high-profile adviser to Trump's campaign team. At the
Republican Party's national convention in 2016, Flynn led Trump's
supporters in cries of "Lock her up!" directed against Democratic candidate
Hillary Clinton.
A group of protesters, including some who chanted "Lock him up,"
gathered outside the courthouse on Tuesday, along with a large inflatable
rat fashioned to look like Trump. Several Flynn supporters also were there,
cheering as he entered and exited. One held a sign that read, "Michael
Flynn is a hero."
Flynn became national security adviser when Trump took office in January
2017, but lasted only 24 days before being fired.
He told FBI investigators on Jan. 24, 2017, that he had not discussed
the U.S. sanctions with Kislyak when in fact he had, according to his plea
agreement. Trump has said he fired Flynn because he also lied to Vice
President Mike Pence about the contacts with Kislyak.
Trump has said Flynn did not break the law and has voiced support for
him, raising speculation the Republican president might pardon him.
"Good luck today in court to General Michael Flynn. Will be interesting
to see what he has to say, despite tremendous pressure being put on him,
about Russian Collusion in our great and, obviously, highly successful
political campaign. There was no Collusion!" Trump wrote on Twitter on
Tuesday morning.
After the hearing, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters
the FBI had "ambushed" Flynn in the way agents questioned him, but said his
"activities" at the center of the case "don't have anything to do with the
president" and disputed that Flynn had committed treason.
"We wish General Flynn well," Sanders said.
In contrast, Trump has called his former long-time personal lawyer
Michael Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to separate charges, a "rat."
Mueller's investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election and
whether Trump has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe has cast a shadow
over his presidency. Several former Trump aides have pleaded guilty in
Mueller's probe, but Flynn was the first former Trump White House official
to do so. Mueller also has charged a series of Russian individuals and
entities.
Trump has called Mueller's investigation a "witch hunt" and has denied
collusion with Moscow.
Russia has denied meddling in the election, contrary to the conclusion
of U.S. intelligence agencies that have said Moscow used hacking and
propaganda to try to sow discord in the United States and boost Trump's
chances against Clinton.
Lying to the FBI carries a statutory maximum sentence of five years in
prison. Flynn's plea agreement stated that he was eligible for a sentence
of between zero and six months.
(Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Ginger
Gibson; Additional reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Kieran Murray and
Will Dunham)
"... christophere steele admitted before a british court today that he was hired by the clintons/obama/DNC to make up the dossier as a weapon to use against trump as a backup plan in case he won the election.. this proves the DNC lied, paid for a fake dossier, and comey admitted he knew the fake dossier was false before using it to get a FISC warrant and to spy on trump, which was used as an excuse for the mueller investigation.. yahoo news and leftwing media arent covering the story.. educate yourselves ..."
1 hour ago
When I read articles like this I look to see who wrote it, printed it etc. When I see
Bloomberg, Yahoo, HuffPo I approach it as fake news. Now I no longer watch any of Fox news
as they are fast becoming just like the rest of the propaganda outlets. This is just
inflammatory anti Trump drivel with no basis in fact.
O 1 hour
ago Was this the interview report that was written 7 months after the interview?
R 44 minutes ago
Actually this story is not accurate. Mueller released copies of the 302 memos, which are in
effect official documentation to a case file. The 302 was dated seven months after the
interview, when the FBI policy requires such reports to be filed within five days. The
judge will ask tomorrow for copies of agent's contemporaneous interview notes and any other
documents supporting what is written in the 302, as well as an explanation for the delay in
filing the memo. 1
hour ago You mean the notes the FBI, in the person of one Peter Strzok, (yes that Strozk)
made seven months after he was interviewed? with the required 302 documents that are either
to be taken extemporaneously or done within days of the interview being dated months later?
You mean those notes?!!!! Nice try Bloomberg, but no amount of yellow journalism spin will
stop this case from being thrown out! 15 minutes ago christophere steele
admitted before a british court today that he was hired by the clintons/obama/DNC to make
up the dossier as a weapon to use against trump as a backup plan in case he won the
election.. this proves the DNC lied, paid for a fake dossier, and comey admitted he knew
the fake dossier was false before using it to get a FISC warrant and to spy on trump, which
was used as an excuse for the mueller investigation.. yahoo news and leftwing media arent
covering the story.. educate yourselves 1 hour ago Not so bias garbage news .. they
entrapped him what 302 form you want to go with .. FBI doctored the original.. FBI
curuption runs rampant.. comey lied so much about knowing about fake dossier.. then what
the hell was he doing.. comey the tall guy phony
Wall Street, Banks, and Angry Citizens
The Inequality Gap on a Planet Growing More Extreme
Nomi Prins
December 13, 2018
2,400 Words
16 Comments
Reply
🔊
Listen
॥
■
►
RSS
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
◄
►
◄
❌
►
▲
▼
Add to Library
Remove
from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
As we head into 2019, leaving the chaos
of this year behind, a major question remains unanswered when it comes to the state of Main Street, not just
here but across the planet. If the global economy really is booming, as many politicians claim, why are
leaders and their parties around the world continuing to get booted out of office in such a sweeping
fashion?
One obvious answer: the post-Great
Recession economic "recovery" was largely reserved for the few who could participate in the rising financial
markets of those years, not the majority who continued to work longer hours, sometimes at multiple jobs, to
stay afloat. In other words, the good times have left out so many people, like those struggling to keep even
a
few hundred dollars
in their bank accounts to cover an emergency or the
80%
of American workers who live paycheck to paycheck.
In today's global economy, financial
security is increasingly the property of the 1%. No surprise, then, that, as a sense of economic instability
continued to grow over the past decade, angst turned to anger, a transition that -- from the U.S. to the
Philippines, Hungary to Brazil, Poland to Mexico -- has provoked a plethora of voter upheavals. In the
process, a 1930s-style brew of rising nationalism and blaming the "other" -- whether that other was an
immigrant, a religious group, a country, or the rest of the world -- emerged.
This phenomenon offered a series of
Trumpian figures, including of course The Donald himself, an opening to ride a wave of "populism" to the
heights of the political system. That the backgrounds and records of none of them -- whether you're talking
about Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, Rodrigo Duterte, or Jair Bolsonaro (among others) -- reflected the daily
concerns of the "common people," as the
classic definition
of populism might have it, hardly mattered. Even a billionaire could, it turned out,
exploit economic insecurity effectively and use it to rise to ultimate power.
Ironically, as that American master at
evoking the fears of apprentices everywhere showed, to assume the highest office in the land was only to
begin a process of creating yet more fear and insecurity. Trump's trade wars, for instance, have typically
infused the world with increased
anxiety
and distrust toward the U.S., even as they thwarted the ability of domestic
business
leaders and ordinary
people
to plan for the future. Meanwhile, just under the surface of the reputed good times, the
damage
to that future only intensified. In other words, the groundwork has already been laid for what
could be a frightening transformation, both domestically and globally.
That Old Financial Crisis
To understand how we got here, let's take
a step back. Only a decade ago, the world experienced a genuine global financial crisis, a meltdown of the
first order. Economic growth ended; shrinking economies threatened to collapse; countless jobs were cut;
homes were foreclosed upon and lives wrecked. For regular people, access to credit suddenly disappeared. No
wonder fears rose. No wonder for so many a brighter tomorrow ceased to exist.
The details of just why the Great
Recession happened have since been glossed over by time and partisan spin. This September, when the 10th
anniversary of the collapse of the global financial services firm Lehman Brothers came around, major
business news channels considered whether the world might be at risk of another such crisis. However,
coverage of such fears, like so many other topics, was quickly tossed aside in favor of paying yet more
attention to Donald Trump's latest tweets, complaints, insults, and lies. Why? Because such a crisis was so
2008 in a year in which, it was
claimed,
we were enjoying a first class economic high and edging toward the
longest
bull-market in Wall Street history. When it came to "boom versus gloom," boom won hands down.
None of that changed one thing, though: most people still feel
left behind
both in the U.S. and
globally
. Thanks to the massive accumulation of wealth by a 1% skilled at gaming the system, the roots
of a crisis that didn't end with the end of the Great Recession have spread
across the planet
, while the dividing line between the "have-nots" and the "have-a-lots" only sharpened
and widened.
Though the media hasn't been paying
much attention to the resulting inequality, the statistics (when you see them) on that ever-widening wealth
gap are mind-boggling. According to Inequality.org, for instance, those with at least $30 million in wealth
globally had the fastest growth rate of any group between 2016 and 2017. The size of that club rose by 25.5%
during those years, to 174,800 members. Or if you really want to grasp what's been happening, consider that,
between 2009 and 2017, the number of billionaires whose combined wealth was greater than that of the world's
poorest 50% fell from
380
to just
eight
. And by the way, despite claims by the president that every other country is screwing America, the
U.S. leads the pack when it comes to the growth of inequality. As Inequality.org
notes
, it has "much greater shares of national wealth and income going to the richest 1% than any other
country."
That, in part, is due to an institution
many in the U.S. normally pay little attention to: the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve. It helped
spark that increase in wealth disparity domestically and globally by adopting a post-crisis monetary policy
in which electronically fabricated money (via a program called quantitative easing, or QE) was offered to
banks and corporations at significantly cheaper rates than to ordinary Americans.
Pumped into financial markets, that
money sent stock prices soaring, which naturally ballooned the wealth of the small percentage of the
population that actually owned stocks.
According to
economist Stephen Roach, considering the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances, "It is hardly a
stretch to conclude that QE exacerbated America's already severe income disparities."
Wall Street, Central Banks, and
Everyday People
What has since taken place around the
world seems right out of the 1930s. At that time, as the world was emerging from the Great Depression, a
sense of broad economic security was slow to return. Instead, fascism and other forms of nationalism only
gained steam as people turned on the usual cast of politicians, on other countries, and on each other. (If
that sounds faintly Trumpian to you, it should.)
In our post-2008 era, people have
witnessed
trillions
of dollars flowing into bank bailouts and other financial subsidies, not just from governments
but from the world's major central banks. Theoretically, private banks, as a result, would have more money
and pay less interest to get it. They would then lend that money to Main Street. Businesses, big and small,
would tap into those funds and, in turn, produce real economic growth through expansion, hiring sprees, and
wage increases. People would then have more dollars in their pockets and, feeling more financially secure,
would spend that money driving the economy to new heights -- and all, of course, would then be well.
That fairy tale was pitched around the
globe. In fact, cheap money also pushed debt to epic levels, while the share prices of banks rose, as did
those of all sorts of other firms, to record-shattering heights.
Even in the U.S., however, where a
magnificent recovery was supposed to have been in place for years, actual economic growth simply didn't
materialize at the levels promised. At
2% per year
, the average growth of the American gross domestic product over the past decade, for
instance, has been half the average of 4% before the 2008 crisis. Similar numbers were repeated throughout
the developed world and most emerging markets. In the meantime, total global debt hit
$247 trillion
in the first quarter of 2018. As the
Institute of International Finance
found, countries were, on average, borrowing about three dollars for
every dollar of goods or services created.
Global Consequences
What the Fed (along with central banks
from Europe to Japan) ignited, in fact, was a disproportionate rise in the stock and bond markets with the
money they created. That capital sought higher and faster returns than could be achieved in crucial
infrastructure or social strengthening projects like building roads, high-speed railways, hospitals, or
schools.
What followed was anything but fair. As
former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen
noted
four years ago, "It is no secret that the past few decades of widening inequality can be summed up
as significant income and wealth gains for those at the very top and stagnant living standards for the
majority." And, of course, continuing to pour money into the highest levels of the private banking system
was anything but a formula for walking that back.
Instead, as more citizens fell behind, a
sense of disenfranchisement and bitterness with existing governments only grew. In the U.S., that meant
Donald Trump. In the United Kingdom, similar discontent was reflected in the June 2016 Brexit vote to leave
the European Union (EU), which those who felt economically squeezed to death clearly meant as a
slap at
both the establishment domestically and EU leaders abroad.
Since then, multiple governments in the
European Union, too, have shifted toward the populist right. In Germany, recent elections swung both
right
and
left
just six years after, in July 2012, European Central Bank (ECB) head Mario Draghi
exuded optimism
over the ability of such banks to protect the financial system, the Euro, and generally
hold things together.
Like the Fed in the U.S., the ECB went
on to manufacture money, adding another
$3 trillion
to its books that would be deployed to buy bonds from favored countries and companies. That
artificial stimulus, too, only increased inequality within and between countries in Europe. Meanwhile,
Brexit negotiations remain ruinously divisive,
threatening
to rip Great Britain apart.
Nor was such a story the captive of the
North Atlantic. In Brazil, where left-wing president Dilma Rouseff was ousted from power in 2016, her
successor Michel Temer oversaw plummeting economic growth and escalating unemployment. That, in turn, led to
the election of that country's own Donald Trump, nationalistic far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro who won a
striking
55.2%
of the vote against a backdrop of popular discontent. In true Trumpian style, he is disposed
against both the very idea of climate change and multilateral trade agreements.
In Mexico, dissatisfied voters similarly
rejected the political known, but by swinging left for the
first time
in 70 years. New president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known by his initials AMLO,
promised to put the needs of ordinary Mexicans first. However, he has the U.S. -- and the whims of Donald
Trump and his "great wall" -- to contend with, which could hamper those efforts.
As AMLO took office on
December 1st
, the G20 summit of world leaders was unfolding in Argentina. There, amid a glittering
backdrop of power and influence, the trade war between the U.S. and the world's rising superpower, China,
came even more clearly into focus. While its president, Xi Jinping, having fully consolidated power amid a
wave of Chinese nationalism, could become his country's
longest serving
leader, he faces an international landscape that would have amazed and befuddled Mao
Zedong.
Though Trump declared his meeting with
Xi a success because the two sides agreed on a
90-day tariff truce
, his prompt
appointment
of an anti-Chinese hardliner, Robert Lighthizer, to head negotiations, a tweet in which he
referred to himself in superhero fashion as a "
Tariff
Man
," and news that the U.S. had requested that Canada arrest and extradite an executive of a key
Chinese tech company, caused the Dow to take its
fourth largest plunge
in history and then
fluctuate wildly
as economic fears of a future "Great Something" rose. More uncertainty and distrust
were the true product of that meeting.
In fact, we are now in a world whose
key leaders, especially the president of the United States, remain willfully oblivious to its long-term
problems, putting policies like deregulation, fake nationalist solutions, and profits for the already
grotesquely wealthy ahead of the future lives of the mass of citizens. Consider the
yellow-vest protests
that have broken out in France, where protestors identifying with left and right
political parties are calling for the resignation of neoliberal French President Emmanuel Macron. Many of
them, from financially starved provincial towns, are angry that their purchasing power has dropped so low
they can barely
make ends meet
.
Ultimately, what transcends geography
and geopolitics is an underlying level of economic discontent sparked by twenty-first-century economics and
a resulting Grand Canyon-sized global inequality gap that is still
widening
. Whether the protests go left or right, what continues to lie at the heart of the matter is the
way failed policies and stop-gap measures put in place around the world are no longer working, not when it
comes to the non-1% anyway. People from
Washington
to
Paris
,
London
to
Beijing
, increasingly grasp that their economic circumstances are not getting better and are not likely
to in any presently imaginable future, given those now in power.
A Dangerous Recipe
The financial crisis of 2008 initially
fostered a policy of bailing out banks with cheap money that went not into Main Street economies but into
markets enriching the few. As a result, large numbers of people increasingly felt that they were being left
behind and so turned against their leaders and sometimes each other as well.
This situation was then exploited by a
set of self-appointed politicians of the people, including a billionaire TV personality who capitalized on
an increasingly widespread fear of a future at risk. Their promises of economic prosperity were wrapped in
populist platitudes, normally (but not always) of a right-wing sort. Lost in this shift away from previously
dominant political parties and the systems that went with them was a true form of populism, which would
genuinely put the needs of the majority of people over the elite few, build real things including
infrastructure, foster organic wealth distribution, and stabilize economies above financial markets.
In the meantime, what we have is, of
course, a recipe for an increasingly unstable and vicious world.
However, coverage of such fears, like so many other topics, was quickly tossed aside in favor of
paying yet more attention to Donald Trump's latest tweets, complaints, insults, and lies.
Tossed aside by whom? The corporate media of course. Fake news. Their ONLY agenda is the ongoing
demonetization of Donald Trump.
Minus the obligatory Trump bashing this is a good piece. The beating heart of Neo Feudalism (against
which we populists/nationalists/deplorables rebel) is debt money aka the FED. So what would you have us
actually do about the banking cartel? Vote BETO? Check our privilege?
I suggest stepping back further than the GFC, to the halcyon days of Thatcher and Reagan and TINA.
That's
when we stopped investing in ourselves, which is why R&D has a 50% lower share of GDP today than then.
Encouraged by the success of this non-investment, we then stopped keeping up the infrastructure we had
built–including the great corporate labs that created our recent prosperity–and now the maintenance bill is
coming due.
Needless to say, the Chinese did the opposite and the current "China!" noise is designed to distract us
from the dreadful destiny our faux democracy created for us.
But a country deserves the government it gets and we've always liked Elmer Gantry's style of
self-confident bullshit.
I miss Mike Whitney. Where did he go? He hasn't posted anything here at Unz since June. He was just as good
as Nomi on the finance/economic topics, but we didn't have to endure the constant anti-Trump
virtue-signalling. It's a bit like being served castor oil along with your beef bourguignon: it spoils the
whole effect.
Another thing I don't like about Nomi is how she fails to make the connection between
hyper-financialization and falling median incomes in the West on the one hand, and open borders and 'free'
trade on the other. Neoliberalism could succinctly be defined as the free movement of goods, capital and
people across borders. Hence, there is nothing left-wing about hating borders–not if you by 'left-wing' you
mean
pro-workingclass
.
Remember, the Tea Party was a grassroots anti-banker movement. The media successfully convinced the rest of
America that they were all racist fascist deplorables.
Post-housing collapse, maybe, the Fed should have provided loans to Main Street merchants, unleashing more
small-business energy, especially since so few Americans are starting businesses these days. But those
loans, too, always need to be allocated to people with a reasonable chance to pay them back. The Fed gave
the dough to the banks and the zombies, but in different ways, the small-business climate in the USA is
almost as bad as the zombie-business climate.
Back in 2008, any small-business stimulus would have been
complicated by the need for small fish to compete with the Goliath of big-box chains and on-every-corner
franchise mills spawned by big corporations, which, in neither case, generate many quality, rent-covering
jobs beyond a few management positions. In many cases, the owners of franchise businesses do not make
much -- they can't pay much. And the recent attempt to stimulate small businesses via the LLC tax cut might be
diluted by the undermining of small retail by volume sellers, like Amazon & Walmart -- behemoths that sell
everything under the sun at cut rates, now speedily delivering to customers' doors.
Infrastructure spending would create long-term value and some quality, if temporary, jobs mostly for
underemployed males, one of the groups unable to just work part-time or temp jobs at low wage levels, making
up the difference between living expenses and inadequate pay with spousal income, child support checks or
multiple monthly welfare streams from .gov and a refundable child tax credit up to $6,431. Rather than
working multiple jobs, that is what many single-breadwinner parents do. They stay below the income limits
for the .gov handouts, strategically, thereby keeping wages and job quality low for many women who lack
access to unearned income streams unrelated to their employment.
College-educated Americans (and others) also face the problem of the many dual-earner parents, keeping
two of the few decent-paying jobs with benefits under one roof. These are often not two rocket-scientist
jobs, but jobs that many educated people could perform. They maintain those jobs despite tons of time off to
accommodate their personal lives, letting $10-per-hour daycare workers, NannyCam-surveilled babysitters and
never-retiring grandparents do the work of raising their kids. The middle-class job pool would expand
dramatically if they were just more interested in raising the kids they produce, but they put house size and
multiple vacations first, with the liberals among them insincerely bemoaning the fact that 30 million
Americans lack health insurance, while they are double-covered in their above-firing, family-friendly jobs.
Still, if infrastructure spending is used to build The Wall, everyone will at least be safer, welfare
expenditures will go down and fewer welfare-assisted noncitizens will chase jobs, driving wages down for
underemployed US citizens. Bridges require repair -- something that affects the safety of everyone in the
country. The electrical grid and nuclear plants need to be fortified. Something needs to be done about
cybersecurity, a type of invisible infrastructure that is more and more important.
We need US citizens to get these jobs, including the record number of working-aged US citizens out of the
laborforce. Infrastructure spending should not be used to employ the citizens of other countries, like the
1.5 to 1.7 new legal immigrants admitted into the country each year, many of whom qualify for welfare and
tax credits for US-born kids and boatloads of illegal immigrants.
The Western propaganda continues unabated. In the latest episode of #FakeNews France3 TV got caught
broadcasting a fake Yellow Vests image–photoshoped by its disinformation division–to their viewers, and then
blatantly lied about afterwards:
I fear for the Jews, both universalist Tikkun Olas like Nomi and the Zio-nationalists,
when the (((Great Ponzi))) collapses.
Haxo has to be hasbara of some sort trying to discredit Prins' article. That aside, I hope for major
correction before we see a complete collapse of the U.S. and global economy which will result in complete
social collapse. For no other reason than I live in a major East Coast city and am not prepared to forage
for food.
That's when we stopped investing in ourselves, which is why R&D has a 50% lower share of GDP today
than then.
Encouraged by the success of this non-investment, we then stopped keeping up the infrastructure we had
built–including the great corporate labs that created our recent prosperity–and now the maintenance bill
is coming due.
Is this the result of Ivy League schools pumping out more degrees in finance rather than science and
engineering, or the cause?
Including Hungary and Viktor Orban in your piece demonstrates a lack of research and a definite lack of
perspective. I discount the rest of what you babble on about as a result. Try doing some on-the-spot
research. You might learn what really is going on. Start with the hundreds of YouTube tourist blogs. Then
visit. Stop blindly regurgitating the narrow, usually distorted crap you find in the press. You may have a
point but it appears to be a house of cards. To me at least. An expat enjoying my freedoms in Hungary.l
Yeah, and what 'tomdispatch regular' Prins does is increase the sense of rage and helplessness by pointing
out the degenerative process without offering any avenue to lance the boil and treat the infection. This
only contributes to the resultant social problems she describes. Not necessarily smart.
Better had she
pointed to some means of holding those responsible accountable, example given:
I'm old, mid seventies, studied economics in the sixties.
Among the many stupid things I did or thought in my life is that economics is what is expressed by
'economics is common sense made difficult'.
Maybe I had also the completely wrong idea about common sense, looking back, and looking around me now, it
hardly seems to exist.
The figures about CO2 ppm can be explained in one sentence, yet mankind seems to be embarking on the most
expensive experiment ever, the outcome of which will, my conviction, be that the only effect is back to
barbarism, civilisation depends on cheap energy.
About financial crises, around 1880 there was a crash in
Germany, Wild West around emission of shares was ended.
In 1929 USA financial regulations were way behind German, the great crash.
The USA, with GB, is the only country in the world where the central bank is not state owned.
Therefore derivatives were not regulated, the fairy tales about absolute minimum value were believed, as
were before 1880 in Germany emission fairy tales.
We have one more problem central bank, ECB, in theory owned by the euro countries, in practice Draghi can do
what he wants, as long as he stays within his statutes.
Anyone with some insight in the world economy sees that w're heading towards a gigantic crash, who is
unable to see this can read Varoufakis.
Now how did we get into this mess ?
In my opinion quite simple: globalisation, that made the political power of the nation states disappear, EU
of course also is globalisation.
Central bankers of the world monthly meet at BIS Basle, financially, economically, in my opinion, there the
world is ruled.
What these central bankers think, I've no idea.
But that Dutch central bank director Klaas Knot does not care for Dutch interests, is more than clear.
There is one important and interesting thing about economies, economy defined as the finances of a
country, the euro zone, the USA, politicians, and bankers, even central bankers, do not control economies.
A few aspects can be controlled, but not all of them at the same time.
So inconsistent decisions lead to unwanted, and/or unforeseen consequences.
The euro is a political experiment, the object was to force euro countries to become more or less
economically the same.
It failed, southern euro countries differ economically as much now from northern as when the euro was
introduced.
The only way out for France economically now I can see is the old devaluation recipe.
Alas, 'thanks' to the euro this is no longer possible.
So that, what is erronuously called elite, has maneuvred itself into a lose lose situation, do nothing, and
France will have a second 1791, or remove the euro flag from the sinking EU ship.
In both cases, as far as I can see, end of EU.
@tac
Quite simple, more and more French are running into financial difficulties.
Most of them of course do not understand why, but they're not interested in why, as the immigrants 'we want
a better life'.
Since over ten years now, I'm retired, we live many months yearly in France.
Great country, compared to the Netherlands, more and more resembling LA.
We do not pay French income taxes, just property tax.
But the steady increase over the years of the cost of living in France we noticed quite well.
For the last two or three years it is clear to us that even our French neighbours are less affluent, our
neighbouring houses all are second homes, owned by upper middle class, of course.
Complaints about the cost of the gardener, no parties with traiteurs any more.
A traiteur is someone who prepares expensive dishes for parties etc.
French complain, even in casual conversations, a restaurant owner 'Macron is right, nobody wants to work in
France any more', someone else 'France is ill, we pay to much for social security'.
Nomi doesn't even mention the impact a million and a half legal immigrants coming in each year has had on
our supposed recovery. How can we trust what she says when she leaves out such pertinent information? In
fact we could argue the only way we were able to recover after the Great Depression is because immigration
had been cut.
Mike was possibly the
only
journalist who gave Trump a modicum of good advice when he mentioned
bumping retirees pay instead of pretending corporate tax cuts will ever "trickle down" to the workers still
on the job. Bullseye! I could use a raise.
Mike said $150 more per month would go directly for stuff retirees need, especially the ones right on the
edge. Young plumbers, roofers, electricians and so on would have tons of work to do.
Cut corporate tax, on the other hand. and the buggers only send more work to China, sluice money to
anti-worker NGOs, or sit on it all like Bill Gates.
I'd go one step further: Put a cork in the billions for Israel program and pay off all American student
loans. Further still: Tax corporations that outsource work to pay every young worker $2500 monthly till
America learns how to pay "middle class wages" again. Bezos at Amazon can get a special bill for the
millions of worker-years he's stiffed and pay them US Marshall rates, backdated to their start date with
interest.
I know, I know. Fascist economics is
so
boring. But we're near the centennial of the days when
Benito Mussolini was the most respected and successful politician in Europe if not the world.
The key problem of the USA is that neoliberalism ideology is now discredited (since 2008) and
neoliberalism as the social system clearly entered the stage of decline. Trump and Brexit
were the first Robin (as in "One robin doesn't make a spring" )
The key problem that probably will prolong the period of neoliberalism past its Shelf LIfe
Expiration Date is that the alternative to it is still unclear. and probably will not emerge
until the end of the age of "cheap oil" which might mean another 40-50 years. But the rise of
far-right nationalism is a clear indication of people in various countries started reject
neoliberal globalization (including the USA, GB and most of Europe.) Trump's "national
neoliberalism" and Brexit are just another side of the same coin.
Economic rape of Russia and post Soviet republic in 1991-2000 as well as the communication
revolution postponed the crisis of neoliberalism for a decade or so. Otherwise, it might well
start around 2000 instead of 2008. Now G7 countries that adopted neoliberalism entered the
phase of "secular stagnation" (as Summers called it) and probably will not be able to escape
for it without some war-style mobilization or military coup d'état and introduction of
command economics.
IMHO military remains one of the few realistic hopes to play the role of countervailing
force for the financial oligarchy -- which owns that state under neoliberalism, So when we
talk about the Depp State that created anti-Trump witch hunt it is not just intelligence
agencies (although they assume active political role now and strive to be the kingmakers).
This Wall street, military-industrial complex and intelligence agencies.
It will be interesting if establishment neoliberals will try to take revenge in 2020, as
they clearly do not have any viable candidate right now (Biden is a sad joke). But they
definitely can put Trump on the ropes in 2019 and sign of their intention to do so already
emerged.
BTW the key problem of Trump survival is that Trump abandoned (or was forced to abandon)
most of his key election promises to the electorate (with the only exception of tariffs for
China, I think).
In this sense Trump behaved much like Obama did with his "Change and hope" bait and switch
trick, and Nobel Peace Price. Nobel Peace Prize for the butcher of Libya and Syria, the
godfather of ISIS, is rich.
During election campaign, his message was straightforwardly anti-globalization. He
believes that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favor of the big
corporations that have been encouraged to invest around the world and thereby deprive
American workers of their jobs. Further, he argues that large-scale immigration has
weakened the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.
He proposes that US corporations should be required to invest their cash reserves in the
US. He believes that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had the effect of
exporting American jobs to Mexico. On similar grounds, he is opposed to the TPP and the
TTIP. And he also accuses China of stealing American jobs, threatening to impose a 45%
tariff on Chinese imports.
To globalization, Trump counterposes economic nationalism: "Put America first". His
appeal, above all, is to the white working class who, until Trump's (and Bernie Sander's)
arrival on the political scene, had been ignored and largely unrepresented since the 1980s.
Given that their wages have been falling for most of the last 40 years, it is extraordinary
how their interests have been neglected by the political class. Increasingly, they have
voted Republican, but the Republicans have long been captured by the super-rich and Wall
Street, whose interests, as hyper-globalisers, have run directly counter to those of the
white working class. With the arrival of Trump they finally found a representative: they
won Trump the Republican nomination.
Trump believes that America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's
resources
The economic nationalist argument has also been vigorously pursued by Bernie Sanders , who
ran Hillary Clinton extremely close for the Democratic nomination and would probably have
won but for more than 700 so-called super-delegates, who were effectively chosen by the
Democratic machine and overwhelmingly supported Clinton. As in the case of the Republicans,
the Democrats have long supported a neoliberal, pro-globalization strategy, notwithstanding
the concerns of its trade union base. Both the Republicans and the Democrats now find
themselves deeply polarized between the pro- and anti-globalizers, an entirely new
development not witnessed since the shift towards neoliberalism under Reagan almost 40
years ago.
Another plank of Trump's nationalist appeal – "Make America great again" –
is his position on foreign policy. He believes that America's pursuit of great power status
has squandered the nation's resources. He argues that the country's alliance system is
unfair, with America bearing most of the cost and its allies contributing far too little.
He points to Japan and South Korea, and NATO's European members as prime examples. He seeks
to rebalance these relationships and, failing that, to exit from them.
As a country in decline, he argues that America can no longer afford to carry this kind
of financial burden. Rather than putting the world to rights, he believes the money should
be invested at home, pointing to the dilapidated state of America's infrastructure. Trump's
position represents a major critique of America as the world's hegemon. His arguments mark
a radical break with the neoliberal, hyper-globalization ideology that has reigned since
the early 1980s and with the foreign policy orthodoxy of most of the postwar period. These
arguments must be taken seriously. They should not be lightly dismissed just because of
their authorship.
Roughly two-thirds of Americans agree that "we should not think so much in international
terms but concentrate more on our own national problems". And, above all else, what will
continue to drive opposition to the hyper-globalizers is inequality.
Hitler was defeated by soviet armies. They had thousands of Russian made T34, patriotic
soldiers (more than 10 millions died, against around 0.1 million from US), and smart
generals.
The lend-lease, the trucks and jeeps, and blahblah . Their effect is a myth. That's a meme
which has been propagated as soon as the USSR went down around 1990 (thus, there was no more
powerful voice to contradict the lies).
Americans can't stand the truth: they did almost nothing, waiting comfortably for Europe to
be completely devasted, then coming near the end to reap the bounty of the winner.
This disgusting behavior had to be hidden by myths such as the truck/jeep meme.
The truth was known by everybody in Europe after the war. Of course the British gave more
responsibility to UK for defeating Hitler, as Russians were doing for their side. But almost
nobody thought that America was the one who defeated Hitler.
Then gradually, the American (hollywood) propaganda rewrote the history, and the American made
myth became the believed truth. Alain Soral: "Marx ****s Hitler"
There is no doubt that Germans, particularly from certain regions of Germany, looked
down upon Slavs.
I'm sure some Germans looked down on Poles, Ukrainians and Russians, like Americans who
used to tell Polish jokes, but that's different from considering them racially inferior.
There were reasons to feel culturally superior. Germany was far wealthier and the people
better educated than in Poland or Ukraine. Their houses were nicer, with indoor toilets, and
their farms neater and better managed. The Red Army soldiers were astounded by how well
Germans lived when they finally reached German soil.
There has to be some explanation for why Russian deserters who volunteered for German
forces were hardly used.
They probably didn't trust Vlasov and his crew until they were forced to out of
desperation. He ended up turning on them anyway, proving it was a bad idea.
As for German regional bias against Slavs, Austria, for one example, in the 1800s
treated the Serbs almost as poorly as the Ottomans did.
It was the same throughout Eastern Europe until modern times. Poland occupied parts of the
Ukraine after the brief war with the Red Army and immediately started Polonizing the areas.
Ethnic Germans were expelled from East Prussia, Silesia and the Sudetenland in 1945.
@Parisian Guy
No, I use rounded figures from what I recall. The USSR built about 50,000 T-34′s in
WWII. They could do this because the USA sent them over 500,000 trucks. The USSR was able to
build 50,000 T-34′s becuase they did not have to build alot of the trucks they used . A
tank aint worth anything without support ammo fuel, which all is delivered by truck. Now for
your theory to hold any water , we could say simply the USSR could have built half the number
of tanks 25,000 T-34 's to build 250,000 of those trucks themselves instead . Stiil alot of
tanks . The only problem is the USSR lost 45000 of those 50000 T-34′s , so they never
would have made it with half the T-34′s along with half the truck's of which most truck
were used to support other forces beside tanks.
Then you aslos have to add the USSR recieved 20000 tanks (afv's) and 20000 aircraft from
the USA UK as well. Do you thinjk the Soviet army could have fought barefoot? Becuase the USA
send them over 5 million pairs of boots IIRC. Lend lease overall amounted at least half of
all Soviet equipment and supplies
No the USSR would simply have lost WWII without lend -lease equipment supplies, handy
figures
@Fidelios
Automata I know that controversy about who wanted war. There is the same about the start
of WW2. I have no opinion. For instance, i've also read that US/UK were very actively trying
to convince Stalin that Hitler was secretly wanting to attack USSR as soon as he could. So
Stalin planned for a preemptive attack. My guess is we will never be able to know the truth
with certainty.
The lend-lease, the trucks and jeeps, and blahblah . Their effect is a myth. That's a
meme which has been propagated as soon as the USSR went down around 1990 (thus, there was
no more powerful voice to contradict the lies).
Part true, but you're overshooting just a bit.
In 1962, East minus West = zero by Werner Keller was published by Putnam in the
USA. There were previous non-US editions.
As I heard it, the big complaint in 1962 (one of) was Foreign Aid. Keller's book gave
JFK's opponents another brick to lob at him, because Keller detailed the extent of that
particular aid that American industrial workers and military had been quiet about due to
secrecy laws.
Since Keller's book had a non-USA roots, it was okay. Might seem idiotic to blame JFK for
FDR's sins, but politics in this asylum works that way.
Because Keller never claimed Lend Lease "won" the war, his volume is rarely cited which is
too bad because he got the details fresh, less than 20 years after the war from sources close
to the factory gate and battleground.
I have not heard of any major errors in the book. Copies are still floating around, but
it's over 350 pages and not light reading.
If anyone cares to critique Keller, I have no quarrel. But so far as I know his book was
the first "reveal" that considered Lend Lease to be any more than a case of a few shiploads
of ammunition and tinned food. Much earlier than the 90s.
@Parisian Guy
Jews Leading Subjectivists, Satanists, Controlling Establishment Christianity
Parisian Jew; regarding lend-lease, the facts speak–it doesn't matter what "polls"
say, which argument of urs is mere version of fallacy of argument-fm-authority. I'm "proof,"
u say?–I stick to the obvious facts, and draw the clear, indicated conclusion soviets
were beaten till resuscitated, rejuvenated, and actually primed by American aid and supply,
especially of simple, basic food, and then the transportation.
Stalin and Russkies themselves URGENTLY asked for tanks and planes when Harry Hopkins
first talked to them, so deficient they'd become, such losses they'd suffered. By end 1941
Russkies had already gotten 200,000 tons of American-produced supplies through the Brits
(before Jew S A even officially got into the war)–Jewwy Wikipedia says they got 360,000
tons.
Jew "power"?–all u have to do is look at Israel, the "tail" wagging American (and
everyone else) "dog." Jews obviously control finances and the world fiat-money and
central-banking systems. But then HOW do Jew exercise that control? Note psychologically Jews
control an extremely powerful segment of "Christian" population in Jew S A, called
"Judeo-Christians" (JCs–see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo), or
"Christian-Zionists," about half of all evangelicals, perhaps numbering up to 40 million here
who strongly support Israeli terror-state. Jews heavily influence and intimidate ALL
establishment Christian churches throughout the world beginning w. "vatican" satanists and
child-molesters.
But most of all, Jews are Talmudists (see Talmudical.blogspot.com), by definition, hence
satanists, Jews being extreme subjectivists ("midrash"), which subjectivism holds reality is
mere creation of mentality/consciousness, making themselves God, the creator–satanists.
Further Jews are most COLLECTIVIST subjectivists, leading group-think practitioners, Jews
most dedicated, most organized, most committed, most cohesive such subjectivists and
group-think artists. Thus Jews control, lead, and manipulate practically all the other
subjectivistic and satanists among the goyim who vastly out-number Jews–this satanism
is crux of their psychologic power. And note satanism is also secular
philosophy–extreme subjectivism–parallel to "religious" Talmudism–it
doesn't matter if a Jew says he's "atheist." Thus Jews are most organized CRIMINALS and
psychopaths, as we see in Israeli terror-state. Q.E.D.
@Parisian Guy
It's probably true that the lend-lease act played only a minor role in the Soviet Union's
victory. Many people don't realize this, but the principal beneficiary of the lend-lease act
was not the USSR, but rather the UK. In fact, Britain, whose population then was then about
one-quarter of what the Soviet Union's was, received more than three times as much aid
as the Soviets did. Per capita, that means they got twelve times more aid than the
USSR.
But some people are destined to go on believing that surplus US jeeps turned the tide on
the Eastern Front. So be it
The lies about unc' Adolf's parentage are mere concoction of Jews, beginning w. a couple
of them, named Langer, a common Jew name, and his brother, a psychologist, the first one
having been appointed head of the Research and Analysis Section of the OSS, no less. The lies
center upon the un-founded assertion that Hitler's grandmother was a domestic servant who
worked for Jews. On contrary, it's known Maria Schickelgruber didn't need such employment as
she was not poor, her parents having retired rather well-off, she inheriting significant
funds:
"2. Maria Anna Schicklgruber was not a poor housemaid who worked for wealthy Jewish
families. The daughter of Johann Schicklgruber, a prosperous farmer in possession of a
well-appointed farm in the village of Strones, and Theresia Pfseisinger, she was born in 1795
and is described by Maser as a thrifty, reserved and exceptionally shrewd peasant woman. She
gives every appearance of having been strong-minded, a trait that was passed down to her son
Alois and her grandson, Adolf.
"3. Maria Anna Schicklgruber's brother, Jakob, purchased the family farm from his father
for 3000 gulden when the father was only 53 years old. Maria's mother, Theresia, had just
inherited 210 gulden from her father's total estate of 1054 gulden, so the parents felt
prosperous enough to retire. To put the value of 3000 gulden in perspective: a cow at that
time could be purchased for 10 to 12 gulden; a brood sow cost 4 gulden; a bed w/bedding was 2
gulden; an inn with stabling could be had for 450 to 500 gulden. As you can see, 3000 gulden
was a substantial amount.
"4. Maria Anna, at the age of 26, inherited 74.25 gulden at the death of her mother in
1821. She kept this sum in the Orphans' Fund until 1838, earning 5% interest. By then, it had
increased to 165 gulden, over double the original amount. Her son was not born until June
1837 when she was 42 yrs. old."
And there were no Jews in the vicinity:
"A) From the end of the 15th Century until a decade after Maria Anna died, no Jews lived
in Graz. They had been expelled by Emperor Maximilian I in 1496 from the province of Styria,
which included Graz. In 1781, under Joseph II, they were allowed to re-enter, but only for a
few weeks at a time, during Lent and at the Feast of St. Giles to the annual Fairs, after
paying a fixed sum. Two years later, these rights were again curtailed, and it remained
enforced until 1860 that no Jews whatsoever could even enter the province."
"12. The Rothschild in Vienna story: This is debunked for the same reasons. Maria Anna
Schicklgruber did not visit or live in Vienna, and there is no record of who these
Rothschilds were, their address or other necessary information."
@Christo Not
sure what the reliability of your source is. For instance, it pretend that USSR used lot of
US made planes, and went upto copy without permission the design of the Boeing B-29. But the
B29 was not operational before the summer of 1944
One cannot say this american source is unbiased.
My point is: all this story did not went public before the demise of USSR. If it was true,
it would have not wait for so long. It looks like that story was not to sustainable before
the USSR voice went mute.
There are other cases where USSR story has been rewritten after its death.
He apparently admitted to his staff he was Jewish descent himself.
Journalists determined Hitler's Y-DNA (paternal line) to be haplogroup E-M35
("E1b1b1″) by testing some of his male relatives back around 2010. It led to a few
typically deprecatory articles around that time that he might be of Jewish or African origin.
E-M35 was also Albert Einstein's haplogroup. However, there are subgroups under E-M35 that
can be detected by a slightly more comprehensive deep clade test.
I find it hard to believe that the journalists didn't spring for the extra hundred dollars
or so needed for a deep clade test. The results have probably been kept out of the news for
some reason. There may be good humanitarian reasons, such as to shield innocent secret
descendants. But complete results could settle the longstanding question of his illegitimate
father's paternity. The most common rumor is that Alois Hitler's mother worked in the Jewish
Frankenberger household of Graz and was impregnated by the 19 year old son Leopold
Frankenberger. However, there is a declassified US Government report on the CIA website that
states that Schuschnigg's pre-Anschluss Austrian government researched Hitler's genealogy and
determined that she actually worked for the Vienna Rothschilds. It notes that Hitler's sister
worked for the Jewish Mensa society in Vienna and that Hitler's ability level was more
consistent with a Rothschild than with his putative Austrian peasant background.
Of course Schuschnigg's government was looking for dirt on Hitler, and connecting him with
the Rothschilds would be even juicier than assigning him incidental Jewish ancestry. The
Rothschild paternal line is reported on the Internet to be an entirely different haplogroup.
However, there may be good security reasons to mislead the public on that point. Interesting,
nonetheless.
As I read somewhere, so were about a quarter of the German populaton including many of
his generals, his favourite little girl and his chaffeur.
25% is probably little high, but the rate of intermarriage is Germany was higher than it
had ever been anywhere else in diaspora history, and there were a lot of children. The
liberal reform Judaism movement originated in Germany. The evidence suggests that Jews were
more comfortable among the Germans in many ways than they had ever been in Eastern Europe, at
least until the Balfour Declaration and the associated recrimination in the aftermath of
WWI.
The Daily Mirror ran a unusually flattering article on Hitler and his "favorite little
girl" (who was only 1/4th Jewish) a few months ago. She used to call him "Uncle Hitler."
His chauffeur's name was Emil Maurice, who asked permission to date Hitler's niece, Geli
Raubal. Hitler refused and she shot herself. Hitler thought Maurice was a loyal Nazi and
stood by him, even when his partial Jewish ancestry was revealed.
@Digital
Samizdatthe principal beneficiary of the lend-lease act was not the USSR, but rather
the UK
Thanks for getting the point with comparative datas.
That's so true that lend-lease for UK was regular teaching at schools in France, but
Lend-lease for USSR was never mentionned.
France was allways neutral or pro-US, depending the time or the matter. Thus France had no
motive to teach an History which would hide the USSR lend-lease, if it had been material.
You are a great guy to read, but your economic model is a little defective. You make it
sound like Venezuela would have been OK, but that pesky Amerindian admixture dragged its
average IQ down to 85; so socialism is claimed to be viable if we have the "right"
people.
China has a much higher average IQ, perhaps higher than the US, but as of 1978, its
average living standards were comparable to Kenya, Nigeria, and Mozambique. East Germany was
well below the level of West Germany. North Korea is way below South Korea.
On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is pure capitalism (private ownership) and 0 is complete
government control, a country is in trouble economically, regardless of IQ, if it falls below
5. A Nazi government was able to bring about an impressive cyclical recovery during the
1930s, but its longer-term prospects would have depended on whether it allowed market forces
to operate to a reasonable degree.
Hitler was defeated by soviet armies. They had thousands of russian made T34, patriotic
soldiers (more than 10 millions died, against around 0.1 million from US), and smart
generals.
The lend-lease, the trucks and jeeps, and blahblah . Their effect is a myth.
The Soviets were capable of stopping the Germans with their own resources.
They may have been capable of reconquering some lost territory but it would have been a
hard slog with no guarantees of success.
The Lend-Lease equipment, especially the trucks, made it possible for the reconquest to be
complete and for eastern Europe to be overrun, giving the Soviet Union a buffer zone against
any future aggression from the west.
The Soviet achievement was certainly impressive. They went from being lousy at mobile
warfare to being very very good at it. But you can't wage mobile warfare without lots and
lots of trucks and there was no way they could have produced those trucks themselves. The
American trucks allowed the Soviets to concentrate on producing tanks and aircraft.
The Americans were certainly happy to let the Soviets do the hard fighting. Stalingrad,
Kursk, Operation Bagration – these were the battles that won the war.
Alain Soral:
"Marx ****s Hitler", by Guillaume Durocher - The Unz Review
@dfordoom
Richard Overy, 'Why the allies won', New York, London, 1995
USA technical military support of Russia already began in 1933:
Franz Kurowski, 'Balkenkreuz und Roter Stern, Der Luftkrieg über Russland 1941 –
1944′, 1984, Friedberg
@apollonian An
unknown book describing how GB steered towards war in the thirties is
Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
GB guarantees began at the north side of the Med
@Parisian Guy
Without USA economic support GB could not have fought WWI, nor WWII.
But even with USA economic support the USA had to intervene militarily.
It is hardly ever mentioned anywhere, but by November 1917 Germany would have won the war in
Europe:
Donald McCormick, 'The mask of Merlin, A Critical Study of David Lloyd George', London, 1963
@Andy "
´Als die Deutschen weg waren, Was nach der Vertreibung geschah: Ostpreussen, Schlesien,
Sudetenland', 2005, 2007, Reinbek, Adrian von Arburg, Wlodzimierz Borodziej, Jurij
Kostjaschow, Ulla Lachauer, Hand-Dieter Rutsch, Beate Schlanstein, Christian Schulz "
Trans: After the Geermans had left, what happened after the expulsion.
A quite interesting book about German superiority.
The expulsion of the Germans led to collapse of industries.
Overall, arms sales increased in 2017, with total global sales nearing 400
billion dollars, marking a 2.5 percent increase from last year and the third year of continued
growth for the industry.
Russia comes in second, with year-over-year growth in arms production. In 2017, Russia
provided the world with 10 percent of arms sales, closely followed by The UK.
Only major arms companies were included in this study. China was excluded due to
insufficient data.
Problem with this is that the buyers of all that American weaponry are definitely not got
any 'bang for the proverbial buck' (pun intended). Horrendously overpriced weaponry which in
most instances render less value and effectiveness than similarly available Russian
analogues.
They know, the arms are inferior garbage, it's just like mafioso protection money or
better known as extortion. The charge a fortune for substandard weapons and MIC folks keep
the change. Same as murican tax payers. If there were no boogie men created then what would
be the justification for all the spending on military hardware?
There is no return on investment here. It's money laundering.
Letter of intent only. They have literally purchased none of those orders, despite
repeated US harassment for the 15 Billion for the THAADS to get the ball rolling. All bluster
and boasting and smoke and mirrors.
My suspicion is that SA under MBS is considering switching sides slowly and will purchase
Russian and Chinese instead. If the US had foreknowledge of this, hence the switch in tone re
butchering journalists and Yemenis ... hence why MBS isn't Time Magazine poster boy at the
moment.
Your correct I went back and checked it was order book not delivery,MBS situation is very
interesting with the recent high five with Putin there was some backstory that it was
celebration of a certain US admirals demise that was causing them problems whether true or
not I dont know but it would not surprise me if S400's end up in Saudi Arabia
Remember that old stuff about Krupp being the "Merchant of Death"? Aren't we, like, edging
into that territory? Is this what the Founders and Ratifiers had in mind? Could this enormous
arms trade and our military expenditures and adventures be a clue that we're on the wrong
track?
On Friday, 14 December 2018, the office of "special counsel" Robert Mueller filed a reply to Gen. Michael Flynn's sentencing
memorandum by the court's deadline, as noted on the court clerk's docket sheet--
"12/14/2018 56 REPLY by USA as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN to Defendant's Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing (Attachments: # 1 Attachment
A, # 2 Attachment B)(Van Grack, Brandon) (Entered: 12/14/2018)".
Judge Emmet Sullivan in an order on 12 December stated: "In 50 defendant's memorandum in aid of sentencing, the
defendant quotes and cites a 'Memorandum dated Jan. 24, 2017.' See page 8 n. 21, 22. The defendant also quotes and cites a 'FD-302
dated Aug. 22, 2017.' See page 9 n. 23-27. The defendant is ORDERED to file on the docket FORTHWITH the cited Memorandum and FD-302.
The Court further ORDERS the government to file on the docket any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on
pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December 14, 2018."
In response to Judge Sullivan's order, the Mueller group attached to its reply memo two noticeably blacked out (redacted) documents,
which turned out to be the same ones that were referred to in Flynn's memo raising the issue of FBI conduct surrounding his interview,
and were nothing additional or new!
The government's reply and two documents that were filed are here--
The two redacted documents are the "January 24, 2017" memo and the "FD-302 dated Aug. 22, 2017", which were cited in the court's
order and which Flynn's lawyers apparently already had, or knew what they were about. Judge Sullivan ordered the Mueller
group to produce "any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9
of the defendant's sentencing memorandum", not just the two that were already known [emphasis added]. The "Attachment B"
is not the form 302 by an agent who interviewed Flynn on 24 January 2017, but rather is a 302 report by an unknown person of an
interview of now former FBI agent Peter Strzok on 20 July 2017, in which Strzok allegedly talks about some things that happened
on 24 January.
Unless the "special counsel" filed a complete set of unredacted documents with a motion (request) for leave to file them under
seal, the reply is on its face a violation of the court's disclosure order.
As 'blue peacock' said in a comment to the posting
on this issue of 14 December, it will be interesting to see what Judge Sullivan does about the response by the Mueller group.
Both documents are heavily blacked out. The form 302 does include the language that the agents at the Flynn interview
"had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying". Since this had already been
revealed in news and mass media reports, they basically had to disclose that little part, otherwise it probably would have
been redacted as well.
On the bottom right corner of each page is a number, which is usually referred to as a "Bates stamp", after the name of
the numbering machines that are often used to number and identify documents that are produced in a lawsuit [1]. The pages
on the form 302 are numbered DOJSCO-700021201 to 05. The one-page typed paper (Attachment A) has number DOJSCO-700021215.
There are nine pages between those pages, but what those might be is not disclosed.
The Justice Department, FBI, and other federal departments are capable of trying to play semantic word games with requests
for information, such that if the exact name or abbreviation of the document or class of documents is not requested, they will
leave them out of their response. In this instance, the judge asked for "any 302s or memoranda" relevant to the circumstances.
The FBI has guidelines about the different types of records it keeps and they can have different names, such as LHM (letterhead
memorandum), EC (electronic communication), original note material, the FD-302, and so forth. There are also different
types of files and records systems. Thus, there may be some ducking and dodging of the court's order on the theory that
the exact types of records were not in the order.
Documents and records may also be generated when any investigative activity is started or requires approval, such as an
assessment, preliminary investigation, or a full investigation. Furthermore, an interesting issue is the type of authorized
activity the Flynn interview was part of: an assessment, preliminary investigation, or full investigation. Although
it is significantly redacted (in this instance whited out instead of blacked out), the FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations
Guide contains some useful information for trying to figure out what is going on with this issue [2].
If this problem with disclosure is not bad enough, on 11 December the Justice Department Inspector General (OIG) issued
a report with the bland title, "Report of Investigation: Recovery of Text Messages from Certain FBI Mobile Devices"-- https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/i-2018-003523.pdf
The OIG investigation began when it was discovered that there was a "gap in text message data collection during the period
December 15, 2016, through May 17, 2017, from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) mobile devices assigned to FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page relevant to a matter being investigated by the OIG's Oversight and Review Division". Those
names are familiar. Thousands of the text messages were recovered.
In addition, the report states: "In view of the content of many of the text messages between Strzok and Page, the
OIG also asked the Special Counsel's Office (SCO) to provide to the OIG the DOJ issued iPhones that had been assigned to Strzok
and Page during their respective assignments to the SCO".
The result? After Strzok was forced to leave the special counsel's office, his iPhone was given to another FBI agent
and reset, wiping out the data. The Mueller group's "records officer" told the inspector general's office that "as part
of the office's records retention procedure, the officer reviewed Strzok's DOJ issued iPhone after he returned it to the SCO
and determined it contained no substantive text messages". In other words, after the Strzok and Page scandal erupted
because of text messages while Strzok was at the special counsel's office, the Mueller group decided itself that his other
cellular phone issued to him by the Department of Justice for the special counsel's office had no "substantive" messages on
it.
Strzok's paramour, Lisa Page, also had an iPhone issued to her by the Justice Department while she was at the special counsel's
office. The Mueller group said it could not find her phone, but it eventually was located at the DOJ's Justice Management
Division. It had been reset, wiping out the data, on 31 July 2017.
"...the officer reviewed Strzok's DOJ issued iPhone after he returned it to the SCO and determined it contained no substantive
text messages"..."
So what is the officer's name, what criterea was used in the review and just what relationship to the extended cast of characters
does this individual have?
It seems to me that this is very big news. Can it be that the Straight Arrow is bent, after all? This is amazing. There is
an article in the Daily Caller: "Powell: New Facts Indicate Mueller Destroyed Evidence..."
dailycaller.com/2018/12/16/...
As a former/retired Agent, I have combed through every piece of information regarding Mike's case, as if I was combing through
evidence in the hundreds of cases I have successfully handled while in the FBI.
The publicly reported Brady material alone, in this case, outweighs any statement given by any FBI Agent (we now know
at least one FD-302 was changed), Special Prosecutor investigator report, and any other party still aggressively seeking
that this case remain and be sentenced as a felony. Quite simply, I cannot see justice being served by branding LtG. Michael
Flynn a convicted felon, when the truth is still being revealed while policies, ethics, and laws have been violated by those
pursuing this case.
We now know all FBI employees involved in Mike Flynn's case have either been fired, forced to resign or forced to retire
because of their excessive lack of candor, punitive biases, leaking of information, and extensive cover-up of their deeds.
Michael Flynn has always displayed overwhelming candor and forthrightness.
The decision to indict Flynn ruins " esprit de corps " in the USA intelligence community. So
Partaigenosser Mulkler trying to depose Trump oversteped the "norms" of intelligence community.
And if CIA allied with FBI against DIA that's a bad sign. It looks like the US elite was split
into two warring camps that will fight for power absolutely ruthlessly.
As for "In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn 'clearly saw the FBI agents
as allies.' " the question arise how he got the to position of the head of DIA with such astounding level of naivety.
If anyone from FBI does not want your lawyer to be present you should probably have a lawyer present.
Notable quotes:
"... "The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo says. ..."
"... According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport." ..."
"... McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the initial meeting with the FBI agents. ..."
"... On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017 time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart, which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a supervisor and who approved them." ..."
"... Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this one count of lying. ..."
"... In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of "subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues. ..."
"... It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court. ..."
"... Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire? ..."
The Special Counsel's Office released key documents related to former National Security
Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn Friday. Robert Mueller's office had until 3 p.m. to get the
documents to Judge Emmet Sullivan, who demanded information Wednesday after
bombshell information surfaced in a memorandum submitted by Flynn's attorney's that led to
serious concerns regarding the FBI's initial questioning of the retired three-star general.
The highly redacted documents included notes from former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
regarding his conversation with Flynn about arranging the interview with the FBI. The initial
interview took place at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017.
The documents also include the FBI's "302" report regarding Flynn's interview with
anti-Trump former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka when they met with him at
the White House. It is not, however, the 302 document from the actual January, 2017 interview
but an August, 2017 report of Strzok's recollections of the interview.
Flynn's attorney's had noted in their memorandum to the courts that the documents revealed
that FBI officials made the decision not to provide Flynn with his Miranda Rights, which
would've have warned him of penalties for making false statements.
"The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false
statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo
says.
According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the
agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they
wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely
affect the rapport."
McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about
leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the
initial meeting with the FBI agents.
The July 2017 report, however, was the interview with Strzok. It described his interview
with Flynn but was not the original Flynn interview.
Apparent discrepancies within the 302 documents are being questioned by may former senior
FBI officials, who state that there are stringent policies in place to ensure that the
documents are guarded against tampering.
On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the
communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017
time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an
expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart,
which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a
supervisor and who approved them."
He stressed, "the bureau policy – the absolute FBI policy – is that the notes
must be placed in the system in a 1-A file within five days of the interview." Danik said that
the handwritten notes get placed into the FBI Sentinel System, which is the FBI's main record
keeping system. "Anything beyond five business days is a problem, eight months is a disaster,"
he added.
In the redacted 302 report Strzok and Pientka said they "both had the impression at the time
that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying." Information that Flynn was not lying
was first published
and reported by SaraACarter.com.
Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have
questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this
one count of lying.
In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn
"clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of
"subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the
hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues.
"Flynn was so talkative, and had so much time for them, that Strzok wondered if the
national security adviser did not have more important things to do than have a such a
relaxed, non-pertinent discussion with them," it said.
The documents turned over by Mueller also reveal that other FBI personnel "later argued
about the FBI's decision to interview Flynn." Tags Law Crime
Basically McCabe and others in his unit are totally discredited. He should have this
quashed and the case thrown out of court. No Miranda rights, therefore no lying to FBI.
Why didn't Flynn demand his day in court? He would have won. I am not buying the ********
argument about him being run into bankruptcy. Hell, he could have represented himself and
still won the case at trial. In addition, I am not buying this ******** argument that he
agreed to plead guilty because he was afraid the Mueller would go after his son. Does anyone
know what Flynn's son does for a living? Why would he be afraid?
Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI.
No! Flynn was not f ound guilty by Mueller on one count of lying. The FBI is an
investigative body (at best) not a judicial body. Only a jury or a judge acting in lieu of a
jury can find someone guilty of anything.
Flynn plead guilty to one count of lying because to have plead innocent would have
bankrupted him in legal fees. However, it's interesting that this ZH article stated that
Mueller found Flynn guilty. In federal courts these days, once you're charged with a crime
you will be found guilty. FBI, DEA, BATF, IRS...whoever, you do not get a fair trial. Federal
judges are hard-wired to find guilt. Vicious and ambitious federal prosecutors have only one
interest, to rack up successful prosecutions. Federal juries are intimidated by the brute
force of the federal system and, I suspect, fear that if they don't bring in a verdict
satisfactory to the prosecutor, they may be investigated themselves. "Investigation" in the
federal sense means that they will be relentlessly harassed forever by the federal
government
My small experience as a juror is that state prosecutors and judges are no different than
what you describe for the federal system. We found a guy non-guilty (not a close call either)
that the judge wanted convicted, and he came back and questioned us about our logic. Casually
of course. I just said the guy was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge wasn't
pleased.
Flynn is an idiot.... why agree to talk to the FBI at all.... as Martha Stewart found
out.... if they can't make the case for what they're investigating... they'll just find some
statement in your "interview" that they claim was not true.... no matter if it was your
intention to lie or just a recollection that was wrong... and charge you with that!
Simple answer is that if law enforcement wants to "talk" to you they're looking to get
information to charge you.... simple reply.... FU... I want a lawyer!
The compromise of classified docs was really sort of candy-assed, everybody knew it . .
.
Rewind the tape, and you will find the contrite Petreaus in front of any and all
microphones confessing to his affair with Broadwell, which he repeatedly stated began on some
certain date . . .conveniently AFTER his confirmation as CIA director . . .
. . .certainly Petreaus was asked in his FBI background interview if he was involved in
any affairs. And he certainly said no.
So, Paula, since I'm on all the networks at the moment, I know you can hear me, our affair
started on X date, in case the FBI gets a notion to ask you (which they did not.)
See, the FBI takes lying seriously. But somebody must have said something along the lines
of: hey, Petreaus is a good guy, I hope you can find a way to let him off easy.
But when faced with financial destruction, your kids being threatened, and false evidence
against you, you sometimes admit to the charges to make a deal...
The military is realizing they are not on the same team with FBI, CIA, DOJ.
Why do you think they have tried so hard to keep NSA under military leadership? Wink,
wink...
Leguran
It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It
is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to
happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court.
The Chief Justice has refused to accept that judges can employ personal poliltical beliefs in court. All courts are
subordinate to the US Supreme Court and therefore the Supreme Court has a duty to ensure justice not just to decide whether
cases are 'sufficiently mature' to come before the Supreme Court. In other words, the Judiciary needs to be disturbed from
their lifetime appointments and made conditional appointments. The Supreme Court needs to deal with incapacity within its own
ranks. All told, this shocking miscarriage of justice came about because the Judicial Branch of government allowed it to
happen. The Judicial Branch has run amok.
lizzie dw
IMO, Judge Emmet Sullivan needs to demand and receive the original UNREDACTED 302 about the Strzok/Pientka interview with
General Flynn. But, really, just by reading the pre-interview discussions of the FBI members involved, the whole thing sounds
fishy.
Caloot
Hedge headline:
Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire?
Like Trump or not, there are serious cracks appearing in the Clintons foundation.
Two days ago, federal judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington D.C.
ordered the "special counsel" Robert Mueller group to do the following by 3:00 p.m. eastern
time today, as shown on the court clerk's docket sheet--
"12/12/2018 MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. In 50 defendant's memorandum in aid of
sentencing, the defendant quotes and cites a 'Memorandum dated Jan. 24, 2017.' See page 8 n.
21, 22. The defendant also quotes and cites a 'FD-302 dated Aug. 22, 2017.' See page 9 n.
23-27. The defendant is ORDERED to file on the docket FORTHWITH the cited Memorandum and
FD-302. The Court further ORDERS the government to file on the docket any 302s or memoranda
relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum
by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December 14, 2018. Should the parties seek to file such material
under seal, the parties may file motions for leave to do so. The government is also ORDERED to
file its reply to the defendant's sentencing memorandum by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December
14, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/12/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 12/12/2018)"
Judge Sullivan is a Black lawyer who came up the hard way, going to Washington D.C. public
schools and Howard University and its law school. Howard University has been a reputable
university with a full curriculum as it provided education to Black Americans from the time of
segregation. He was appointed by three different U.S. presidents to judicial positions, by
Reagan, Bush sr, and Bill Clinton [1].
The actions and investigation regarding Gen. Michael Flynn (ret.) beginning when he was
removed as National Security Advisor to president Trump have seemed odd and not to square with
past behavior and the normal course of things. With little information available publicly it is
very difficult to look at the issue and pick through information, since it has been mainly
hidden behind the skirts of the Mueller "investigation", which was supposed to look at
"interference" by the Russian government in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Flynn's sentencing is set for next Tuesday, 18 December. However, that is subject to change,
depending on what is filed today. I will try to provide some relevant items from the court
clerk's file that you can read to bring yourself up to date about the court case from what is
available; some items are still filed under seal, and the probation office presentence
investigation report (PSI) is kept private as a matter of federal judicial policy.
That defense would be more effective if Flynn was a bewildered youth or someone with
diminished mental capacities being badgered in a police interrogation room.
Flynn certainly acted like a bewildered, naive person.
Did he think that the FBI was showing up to ask about his health?
Was he really the Director of DIA......or did he just stay in a Holiday Inn?
Thank you Robert. It's good to have someone like judge Sullivan presiding over this case.
We'll have to wait and see, but a lot of what I have gathered so far suggests Gen. Flynn is a
man of honorable character who has been raked over for mostly political reasons.
In the meantime, has anyone investigated the leak that supposedly caught Flynn talking to the
Russian Amb?
That apparently did harm sources and methods.
But,noooooooooo, no investigation.
The swamp cares not a whit for national security, but yet constantly lectures us
"deplorables" about their great talent and dedication - they'd all be Fortune 500 CEO's if
they weren't so dedicated.
There are probably a few dedicated talented people trying to do the right thing, but the
bureaucracy - including the Intel. agencies/FBI (VERY important people "risking" their lives,
BTW) - has shown over and over to be populated mostly by self-enriching slugs.
The leak was that USI and LE were listening in on the Russian Ambassador's conversations by
turning his smartphone into a hot mic by exploiting well-known SS7 vulnerabilities. This
hardly reveals anything new about sources and methods. Any one who wants to keep secrets
shouldn't be carrying a smartphone and any ambassador who thinks the host government doesn't
keep him under surveillance is hopelessly naive.
Was it a leak or was it just an assumption of the obvious surveillance of Kislyak? Pence is
the one who confirmed Flynn talked to Kislyak about lifting sanctions and lied to him about
it.
Former FBI Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz has asked SaraACarter.com to post her letter to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
in support of her friend and colleague retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who will be
sentenced on Dec. 18. The Special Counsel's Office has requested that Flynn not serve any
jail time due to his cooperation with Robert Mueller's office. Based on new information
contained in a memorandum submitted to the court this week by Flynn's attorney, Sullivan has
ordered Mueller's office to turn over all exculpatory evidence and government documents on
Flynn's case by mid-day Friday. Sullivan is also requesting any documentation regarding the
first interviews conducted by former anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka
-known by the FBI as 302s- which were found to be dated more than seven months after the
interviews were conducted on Jan. 24, 2017, a violation of FBI policy, say current and former
FBI officials familiar with the process. According to information contained in Flynn's
memorandum, the interviews were dated Aug. 22, 2017.
Read Gritz's letter below... (emphasis added)
The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan. December 5, 2018 U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001
Re: Sentencing of Lt. General Michael T. Flynn (Ret.)
Dear Judge Sullivan:
I am submitting my letter directly since Mike Flynn's attorney has refused to submit it as
well as letters submitted by other individuals. I feel you need to hear from someone who was an
FBI Special Agent who not only worked with Mike, but also has personally witnessed and reported
unethical & sometimes illegal tactics used to coerce targets of investigations externally
and internally.
About Myself and FBI Career
For 16 years, I proudly served the American people as a Special Agent working diligently on
significant terrorism cases which earned noteworthy results and fostered substantial
interagency cooperation. Prior to serving in the FBI I was a Juvenile Probation Officer in
Camden, NJ. Currently, I am a Senior Information Security Metrics and Reporting Analyst with
Discover Financial Services in the Chicago Metro area. I have recently been named as a Senior
Fellow to the London Center for Policy Research.
While in the FBI, I served as a Special Agent, Supervisory Special Agent, Assistant
Inspector, Unit Chief, and a Senior Liaison Officer to the CIA. I served on the NSC's Hostage
and Personnel Working Group and brought numerous Americans out of captivity and was part of the
interagency team to codify policies outlining the whole of government approach to hostage
cases.
In November 2007, I was selected over 26 other candidates to become the Supervisory Special
Agent, CT Extraterritorial Squad; Washington Field Office (WFO) in Washington, DC. At WFO, I
led a squad of experts in extraterritorial evidence collection, overseas investigations,
operational security during terrorist attacks/events, and overseas criminal investigations. I
coordinated and managed numerous high profile investigations (Blackwater, Chuckie Taylor,
Robert Levinson, and other pivotal cases) comprised of teams from US and foreign intelligence,
military, and law enforcement agencies. I was commended for displaying comprehensive leadership
performance under pressure, extensive teamwork skills, while conducting critical investigative
analysis within and outside the FBI.
In December 2009, I was promoted to GS-15 Unit Chief (UC) of the Executive Strategy Unit,
Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate (WMDD). While the UC, I codified the WMDD five-year
strategic plan, formulated goals and objectives throughout the division, while translating the
material into a directorate scorecard with cascading measurements reflecting functional and
operational unit areas. This was the only time in Washington, DC when I did not work with of
for McCabe.
From September to December 2010, I was selected as the FBI's top candidate to represent the
FBI, and the USG in a rigorous, intellectually stimulating; 12 week course for civilian
government officials, military officers, and government academics at the George C. Marshall
Center in Garmisch, Germany, Executive Program in Advanced Security Studies. The class was
comprised of 141 participants from 43 countries.
I have received numerous recommendations and commendations for my professionalism, liaison
and interpersonal ability and experience . Additionally, I have been rated Excellent or
Outstanding for my entire career, to include by Andrew McCabe when I was stationed at the
Washington Field Office. Further, other awards of note are: West Chester University 2005 Legacy
of Leadership recipient, Honored with House of Representatives Citation for Exemplary record of
Service, Leadership, and Achievements: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Awarded with a framed
Horn of Africa blood chit from the Department of Defense and Office of the DASD (POW/MPA/MIA)
for my work in bringing Americans Out of captivity, "Patriot, Law Enforcement Warrior, and
Friend."
Length of Association with Flynn, McCabe, and Mueller
I met Michael Flynn in 2005, while working in the Counterterrorism Division (CTD) at FBI
Headquarters (FBIHQ).
I met then Supervisory Special Agent Andrew McCabe, when he reported to CTD at FBIHQ, around
the same time. McCabe subsequently was the Assistant Section Chief over my unit, my Assistant
Special Agent in Charge at the Washington Field Office, and the Assistant Director (AD) over
CTD when I encountered the discrimination and McCabe spearheaded the retaliation personally
(according to documentation) against me.
I have known both men for 12-13 years and worked directly with both throughout my career.
They are on the opposite spectrum of each other with regard to truthfulness, temperament, and
ethics, both professionally and personally.
I regularly briefed former FBI Director and Special Prosecutor Mueller on controversial and
complex cases and attended Deputies meetings at the White house with then Deputy Director
Pistole. I got along with both and trusted both. Watching what has been done to Mike and
knowing someone on the 7th floor had to have notified Mueller of my situation (Pistole had
retired), has been significantly distressing to me.
Lt.G. Michael T. Flynn:
Mike and I were counterparts on a DOJ-termed ground-breaking initiative which served as a
model for future investigations, policies, legislation and FBI programs in the Terrorist Use of
the Internet. For this multi-faceted and leading-edge joint operation, I was commended by Gen.
Stanley McChrystal, Gen. Keith Alexander (NSA Director), and LtG. Michael Flynn as well as
others for leading the FBI's pivotal participation in this dynamic and innovative interagency
operation. I received two The National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Citation (NIMUC) I for my
role in this operation. The NIMUC is an award of the National Intelligence Awards Program, for
contributions to the United States Intelligence Community.
Mick Flynn has consistently and candidly been honest and straightforward with me since the
day I met him in 2005. He has been a mentor and someone I trust to give me frank advice when I
ask for his opinion. His caring nature has shown through especially when he saw me being torn
apart by the FBI and he felt compelled to write a letter in support of me. He further took the
extra step to comment on my character in an NPR article and interview exposing the wrongdoings
in my case and others who have stood up for truth and against discrimination/retaliation.
Senator Grassley also commented on my behalf. NPR characterized this action against me as a
"warning shot" to individuals who stood up to individuals such as McCabe.
The day after I resigned from the FBI, while I was crying, Mike reached out and
congratulated me on my early retirement. I really needed to hear that from someone I respected
so much. His support for the last 13 years has been unparalleled and extremely valuable in
helping me get through the trauma of betrayal, unethical behavior, illegal activity executed
against me and to rebuild my life. Additionally, his support has helped my family in dealing
with their painful emotions regarding my situation. My parents wanted me to pass on to you that
they are blessed that I have had a compassionate and supportive individual on my side
throughout this trying time.
Mike has been a respected leader by his peers and by FBI Agents and Analysts who have
interacted with him. I personally feel he is the finest leader I have ever worked with or for
in my career. Our continued friendship and subsequent friendship with his family has helped all
of us cope with the stress a situation like this puts on individuals and families.
It is so very painful to watch an American hero, and my friend, torn apart like this. His
family has had to endure what no family should have to. I know this because of the damaging
effect my case had on my parent's health, finances, and emotional well-being. Mike and I both
had to sell our houses due to legal fees, endured smear campaigns (mostly by the same
individual, McCabe). I ended up being deemed homeless by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was
on public assistance and endured extensive health and emotional damage due to the retaliation.
Mike kept in touch and kept me motivated. He has always reached out to help me with whatever he
could.
The Process is the Punishment
Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch commented to me that the "Process is the punishment." This
is the most accurate description I have heard regarding the time Mike has gone through with
this process and the year and a half I was ostracized and idled before I resigned. This process
is one which many FBI employees, current, retired and former, feel was brought to the FBI by
Mueller and he subsequently brought this to the Special Prosecutor investigation.
It also fostered the behavior among FBI "leadership" which we find ourselves shocked at when
revealed on a daily basis. Is this the proper way to seek justice? I say no. I swore to uphold
the Constitution while protecting the civil rights of the American people. I believe many
individuals involved in Mike's case have lost their way and could care less about protection of
due process, civil and legal rights of who they are targeting. Mike has had extensive
punishment throughout this process. This process has punished him harder than anyone else
could.
Andrew McCabe
I believe I have a unique inside view of the mannerisms surrounding Andrew McCabe, other FBI
Executive Management and Former Director Mueller, as well as the unethical and coercive tactics
they use, not to seek the truth, but to coerce pleas or admissions to end the pain, as I call
it. They destroy lives for their own agendas instead of seeking the truth for the American
people. Candor is something that should be encouraged and used by leadership to have necessary
and continued improvement. Under Mueller, it was seen as a threat and viciously opposed by
those he pulled up in the chain of command.
I am explaining this because numerous Agents have expressed the need for you to know
McCabe's and Mueller's pattern of "target and destroy" has been utilized on many others,
without regard for policies and laws. I, myself, am a casualty of this reprehensible behavior
and I have spoken to well over 150 other FBI individuals who are casualties as well.
I am the individual who filed the Hatch Act complaint against McCabe and provided
significant evidentiary documents obtained via FOIA, open source, and information from current,
former, and retired Special Agents. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) asked why my filing of
the complaint was delayed from the actual acts. I said I personally thought I was providing
additional information to what should have been an automatic referral to OSC by FBI OPR. I was
notified I was the only complainant. This illustrates not only a fatal flaw in OPR AD Candice
Will not making the appropriate and crucial referral, but also shows the fear of those within
the FBI to report individuals like McCabe for fear of retaliation.
While serving at the CIA, detailed by the FBI in January 2012, I was responsible for
overseas investigations, as opposed to Continental United States-based (CONUS) cases.
Unfortunately, during my assignment at the CIA, I encountered extensive discrimination by two
FBI Special Agents and subsequently, in 2012, I filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
complaint. Instead of addressing the issues, then CTD Assistant Director Andrew McCabe chose to
authorize a retaliatory Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation against me,
five days after my EEO contact. The OPR referral he signed was authored by the two individuals
I had filed the EEO complaint against. In his signed sworn statement, McCabe admitted he knew I
had filed or was going to file the EEO.
Numerous members of my department at the CIA requested to be spoken with by CTD executive
management, regarding my work ethic and accomplishments. However, CTD, Inspection Division, and
OPR disregarded the list of names and contact numbers I submitted. This is an example of
knowing you are being targeted and the truth is not being sought.
Although my time at this position was short, I was commended by my CIA direct supervisor
for: "having already contributed more than your predecessor in the short time you have been
here." My predecessor had been assigned to the post for 18 months; I had been there four
months.
In contrast and showing lack of candor, McCabe wrote on official documents the following
statement, contradicting the actual direct supervisor I worked with daily:
"SA Gritz had to be removed from a prior position in an interagency environment, due to
inappropriate communications and general performance issues"
This is one of many comments McCabe used to discredit my reputation and to ostracize me.
McCabe knew me as someone who told the truth, worked hard, got results, and was always willing
to be flexible when needed. He was also acutely aware of the excellent relationships I had
formed in the USG interagency due to comments made by individuals from numerous agencies. Yet,
he continued to make false statements on official documents. He has done this to numerous other
very valuable FBI employees, destroying their careers and lives. He used similar tactics of
lies against Flynn. It should be noted, McCabe was very aware of my professional association
with Mike Flynn.
In July 5, 2012, I was involuntarily pulled back to CTD from the CIA. I was told McCabe made
the decision. A year and a month later, I resigned from the job I absolutely loved and was good
at. All because of the lack of candor of numerous individuals within the FBI.
Unethical and
dishonest investigative tactics
Throughout the last year, I have kept abreast of the revelations surrounding anything
related to Mike's case. I believe, from my years at the FBI and in exposing corruption and
discrimination, the circumstances surrounding the targeting, investigation, leaking, and
coercion of him to plea are all consistent with the unethical process I and many others have
witnessed at the FBI. The charge which Mike Flynn plead to was the result of deception,
intimidation, and bias/agenda. Simply, Mike is being branded a convicted felon due to an
unethical and dishonest investigation by people who were malicious, vindictive, and corrupt.
They wished to silence Mike, like they had once silenced me.
The American people have read the Strzok/Page text messages, the conflicting testimony and
lack of candor statements of former Director Comey, the perceived overstepping of the
reasonable scope of the Special Prosecutor's investigation, the extensive unethical,
untruthful, and outright illegal behavior of Andrew McCabe, to include slanderous statements
against Flynn, and the facts found within FOIA released documents and Congressional testimony.
As a former/retired Agent, I have combed through every piece of information regarding Mike's
case, as if I was combing through evidence in the hundreds of cases I have successfully handled
while in the FBI.
The publicly reported Brady material alone, in this case, outweighs any statement given by
any FBI Agent (we now know at least one FD-302 was changed), Special Prosecutor investigator
report, and any other party still aggressively seeking that this case remain and be sentenced
as a felony. Quite simply, I cannot see justice being served by branding LtG. Michael Flynn a
convicted felon, when the truth is still being revealed while policies, ethics, and laws have
been violated by those pursuing this case.
We now know all FBI employees involved in Mike Flynn's case have either been fired, forced
to resign or forced to retire because of their excessive lack of candor, punitive biases,
leaking of information, and extensive cover-up of their deeds.
Summation
Michael Flynn has always displayed overwhelming candor and forthrightness. One of the main
individuals involved in his case is Andrew McCabe, who used similar tactics against me in my
case, of which Mike Flynn defended me by penning a letter of character reference and is a
witness. Seeing McCabe was named as a Responding Management Official in my case, he should have
recused himself with anything having to do with a character witness on my behalf against him
and DOJ.
I'm told by numerous people, but have been unable to confirm, that McCabe was asked why he
was so viciously going after Flynn; my name was mentioned. I do know, from experience with
McCabe, he is a vindictive individual and I have no doubt Mike's support of me fueled McCabe's
disdain and personally vindictive aggressive unethical activities in this case . It matches his
behavior in my case.
Reliable fact-finding is essential to procedural due process and to the accuracy and
uniformity of sentencing. I'm unsure if the fact-finding in this case is reliable, nor do I
think we currently have all the facts.
The punishment which LtG. Flynn has already endured this past year, due to the nature of the
case, legal fees and reputation damage, is punishment enough. He is a true patriot, a loving
husband and father, a devoted grandfather, a trusted friend, and has a close knit family made
up of compassionate and honest individuals. To be branded a felon, is a major hit to a hero who
protected the American people for 33 years. I do not think society would benefit from Mike
Flynn going to jail nor being branded as a convicted felon. Not knowing the sentencing
guidelines for this charge but if there is any chance that the case can be downgraded to a
misdemeanor, this would be an act of justice that numerous Americans need to see to stay
hopeful for further justice.
This lady is seriously brave. She confirms one more reason i strongly support our Second
Amendment; it's to protect us from tyrants and corrupt people like McCabe, Ohr, Comey and
Mueller. Oh yes. I almost forget Rosenstein who should be hung for treason also.
WOW...all this time I had been asking where are the whistle blowers and kept saying,
certainly not all the FBI are this corrupt -and further asked are they being threatened to
not come forward?"
Well, the later sure seems true when you consider Ms. Gristz statements, particularly "
the fear of those within the FBI to report individuals like McCabe for fear of retaliation.
"
This is the level of corruption that ought to bring this entire cabal to their knees and
place them behind bars. Hopefully Judge Sullivan's intuitions will be bolstered by Ms.
Gristz' letter.
The FBI is corrupt to the core...from top to bottom. If she joined the FBI to "uphold the
Constitution" or "serve the American People" or some other horseshit then that was her first
mistake. The FBI is a completely corrupt & unconstitutional organization that protects
only the (((globalists))) and other enemies of freedom. The Hoover Buliding should be
padlocked and all of the agents of evil put on trial for treason.
Flynn was an example to the rest of the Trump supporters. His guilt or innocense was/is
meaningless and irrlevant to the Prog Attack Dogs. The message was/is clear:
"We are the Power. Resistance is futile. Bend your knee or we will destroy you."
It is prudent for reasonable people to believe that the Progs have spent the past couple
years destroying evidence that can be used against their gods (Obama, Clinton, Soros, etc.)
and their cohorts.
There is no penalty or negative consequence for the Mueller team who engaged in
"unethical" activity. None of them will have to answer to anyone or disgorge the millions of
dollars in "fees" they have been paid by the Sheeple.
All Progs must hang.
Christopher Wray must hang next.
So much for peace that neoliberal globalization should supposedly bring...
Notable quotes:
"... We face a world of multiple wars some leading to direct global conflagrations and others that begin as regional conflicts but quickly spread to big power confrontations. ..."
"... In our times the US is the principal power in search of world domination through force and violence. Washington has targeted top level targets, namely China, Russia, Iran; secondary objectives Afghanistan, North and Central Africa, Caucuses and Latin America ..."
"... China is the prime enemy of the US for several economic, political and military reasons: China is the second largest economy in the world; its technology has challenged US supremacy it has built global economic networks reaching across three continents. China has replaced the US in overseas markets, investments and infrastructures. ..."
"... In response the US has resorted to a closed protectionist economy at home and an aggressive military led imperial economy abroad. ..."
"... The first line of attack are Chinese exports to the US and its vassals. Secondly, is the expansion of overseas bases in Asia. Thirdly, is the promotion of separatist clients in Hong Kong, Tibet and among the Uighurs. Fourthly, is the use of sanctions to bludgeon EU and Asian allies into joining the economic war against China. China has responded by expanding its military security, expanding its economic networks and increasing economic tariffs on US exports ..."
"... The US economic war has moved to a higher level by arresting and seizing a top executive of China's foremost technological company, Huawei. ..."
"... Each of the three strategic targets of the US are central to its drive for global dominance; dominating China leads to controlling Asia; regime change in Russia facilitates the total submission of Europe; and the demise of Iran facilitates the takeover of its oil market and US influence of Islamic world. As the US escalates its aggression and provocations we face the threat of a global nuclear war or at best a world economic breakdown. ..."
We face a world of multiple wars some
leading to direct global conflagrations and others that begin as regional conflicts but quickly spread to
big power confrontations.
We will proceed to identify 'great power'
confrontations and then proceed to discuss the stages of 'proxy' wars with world war consequences.
In our times the US is the principal
power in search of world domination through force and violence. Washington has targeted top level targets,
namely China, Russia, Iran; secondary objectives Afghanistan, North and Central Africa, Caucuses and Latin
America.
China is the prime enemy of the US for
several economic, political and military reasons: China is the second largest economy in the world; its
technology has challenged US supremacy it has built global economic networks reaching across three
continents. China has replaced the US in overseas markets, investments and infrastructures. China has built
an alternative socio-economic model which links state banks and planning to private sector priorities. On
all these counts the US has fallen behind and its future prospects are declining.
In response the US has resorted to a
closed protectionist economy at home and an aggressive military led imperial economy abroad. President Trump
has declared a
tariff
war on China; and multiple separatist and propaganda war; and aerial
and maritime encirclement of China's mainland
The first line of attack are Chinese
exports to the US and its vassals. Secondly, is the expansion of overseas bases in Asia. Thirdly, is the
promotion of separatist clients in Hong Kong, Tibet and among the Uighurs. Fourthly, is the use of sanctions
to bludgeon EU and Asian allies into joining the economic war against China. China has responded by
expanding its military security, expanding its economic networks and increasing economic tariffs on US
exports.
The US economic war has moved to a higher
level by arresting and seizing a top executive of China's foremost technological company, Huawei.
The White House has moved up the ladder
of aggression from sanctions to extortion to kidnapping. Provocation, is one step up from military
intimidation. The nuclear fuse has been lit.
Russia faces similar threats to its
domestic economy, its overseas allies, especially China and Iran as well as the US renunciation of
intermediate nuclear missile agreement
Iran faces oil sanctions, military
encirclement and attacks on proxy allies including in Yemen, Syria and the Gulf region Washington relies on
Saudi Arabia, Israel and paramilitary terrorist groups to apply military and economic pressure to undermine
Iran's economy and to impose a 'regime change'.
Each of the three strategic targets of
the US are central to its drive for global dominance; dominating China leads to controlling Asia; regime
change in Russia facilitates the total submission of Europe; and the demise of Iran facilitates the takeover
of its oil market and US influence of Islamic world. As the US escalates its aggression and provocations we
face the threat of a global nuclear war or at best a world economic breakdown.
Wars by Proxy
The US has targeted a second tier of
enemies, in Latin America, Asia and Africa.
In Latin America the US has waged
economic warfare against Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. More recently it has applied political and economic
pressure on Bolivia. To expand its dominance Washington has relied on its vassal allies, including Brazil,
Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Argentina and Paraguay as well as right-wing elites throughout the region
As in numerous other cases of regime
change Washington relies on corrupt judges to rule against President Morales, as well as US foundation
funded NGO's; dissident indigenous leaders and retired military officials. The US relies on local political
proxies to further US imperial goals is to give the appearance of a 'civil war' rather than gross US
intervention.
In fact, once the so-called 'dissidents'
or 'rebels' establish a foot hole, they 'invite' US military advisers, secure military aid and serve as
propaganda weapons against Russia, China or Iran – 'first tier' adversaries.
In recent years US proxy conflicts have
been a weapon of choice in the Kosovo separatist war against Serbia; the Ukraine coup of 2014 and war
against Eastern Ukraine; the Kurd take over of Northern Iraq and Syria; the US backed separatist Uighurs
attack in the Chinese province of Xinjiang.
The US has established 32 military bases
in Africa, to coordinate activities with local warlords and plutocrats. Their proxy wars are discarded as
local conflict between 'legitimate' regimes and Islamic terrorists, tribality and tyrants.
The objective of proxy wars are
threefold. They serve as 'feeders' into larger territorial wars
encircling
China, Russia
and Iran.
Secondly, proxy wars are 'testing
grounds' to measure the vulnerability and responsive capacity of the targeted strategic adversary, i.e.
Russia, China and Iran.
Thirdly, the proxy wars are 'low cost'
and 'low risk' attacks on strategic enemies. The lead up to a major confrontation by stealth.
Equally important 'proxy wars' serve as
propaganda tools, associating strategic adversaries as 'expansionist authoritarian' enemies of 'western
values'.
Conclusion
US empire builders engage in multiple
types of aggression directed at imposing a unipolar world. At the center are trade wars against China;
regional military conflicts with Russia and economic sanctions against Iran.
These large scale, long-term strategic
weapons are complemented by proxy wars, involving regional vassal states which are designed to erode the
economic bases of counting allies of anti-imperialist powers.
Hence, the US attacks China directly via
tariff wars and tries to sabotage its global "Belt and Road' infrastructure projects linking China with 82
counties.
Likewise, the US attacks Russian allies
in Syria via proxy wars, as it did with Iraq, Libya and the Ukraine.
Isolating strategic anti-imperial power
via regional wars, sets the stage for the 'final assault' – regime change by cop or nuclear war.
However, the US quest for world
domination has so far taken steps which have failed to isolate or weaken its strategic adversaries.
China moves forward with its global
infrastructure programs: the trade war has had little impact in isolating it from its principal markets.
Moreover, the US policy has increased China's role as a leading advocate of 'open trade' against President
Trump's protectionism.
ORDER IT NOW
Likewise, the tactics of encircling and
sanctioning Russia has deepened ties between Moscow and Beijing. The US has increased its nominal 'proxies'
in Latin America and Africa but they all depend on trade and investments from China. This is especially true
of agro-mineral exports to China.
Notwithstanding the limits of US power
and its failure to topple regimes, Washington has taken moves to compensate for its failures by escalating
the threats of a global war. It kidnaps Chinese economic leaders; it moves war ships off China's coast; it
allies with neo-fascist elites in the Ukraine. It threatens to bomb Iran. In other words the US political
leaders have embarked on adventurous policies always on the verge of igniting one, too, many nuclear fuses.
It is easy to imagine how a failed trade
war can lead to a nuclear war; a regional conflict can entail a greater war.
Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it
will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations; its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies
in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are
reasons to hope!
I disagree. The parasitic terror regime that runs washington believe they can win a nuclear war, i have no
hope left for peace. They need a culling of the "useless eaters", we are stealing the food out of their poor
frightened children`s mouths by existing.
Eric Zuesse wrote a decent article yesterday at the Saker blog about the US nuclear forces and its owners
wet dream.
"The U.S. Government's Plan Is to Conquer Russia by a Surprise Invasion"
The actions of nato/EU/UK/ISR/KSA etc certainly supports his article, at least in my opinion.
The US, and the West, by instigating wars elsewhere, and selling weapons to
those, destroy countries and prosperity abroad. Those living in target countries find themselves miserable,
with loss of everything. It is only natural that they may try to escape a living hell by emigrating to the
West.
People in the US and the West in general will not want mass immigration, and with good reason; but if you
were in a war torn country or an impoverished country (as a result of western "help") you would also attempt
to move away from the bombs, etc.
If the West left the rest of the world alone (in terms of their regimes and in terms of their weapons),
they might prosper and no longer need to run away from their home countries.
The sanctions and embargoes have failed in the past, when China was much weaker, so we can be quite
confident that they will fail again, and quickly, as this timeline suggests:
September 3, 2018
:
Huawei unveils Kirin 980 CPU, the world's first commercial 7nm system-on-chip (SoC) and the first to use
Cortex-A76 cores, dual neural processing units, Mali G76 GPU, a 1.4 Gbps LTE modem and supports faster RAM.
With 20 percent faster performance and 40 percent less power consumption compared to 10nm systems, it has
twice the performance of Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 and Apple's A11 while delivering noticeable battery life
improvement. Its Huawei-patented modem has the world's fastest Wi-Fi and its GPS receiver taps L5 frequency
to deliver 10cm. positioning.
September 5, 2018
. China's front-end fab capacity will account for 16 percent of the world's
semiconductor capacity this year, increasing to 20 percent by 2020.
September 15, 2018.
China controls one third of 5G patents and has twice as many installations
operating as the rest of the world combined.
September 21, 2018
. China has reached global technological parity and now has twelve of the
world's top fifty IC design houses (China's SMIC is fourth, Huawei's HiSilicon is seventh), and twenty-one
percent of global IC design revenues. Roger Luo, TSMC.
October 2, 2018
. Chinese research makes up 18.6 percent of global STEM peer-reviewed papers, ahead
of the US at 18 percent. "The fact that China's article output is now the largest is very significant. It's
been predicted for a while, but there was a view this was not likely to happen until 2025," said Michael
Mabe, head of STM.
October 14, 2018
. Huawei announces 7 nm Ascend 910 chipset for data centers, twice as powerful as
Nvidia's v100 and the first AI IP chip series to natively provide optimal TeraOPS per watt in all scenarios.
Available 2Q19.
October 7, 2018
: China becomes largest recipient of FDI in H1, attracting an estimated 70 billion
U.S. dollars, according to UNCTAD.
October 8, 2018:
Taiwan's Foxconn moves its major semiconductor maker and five integrated circuit
design companies to Jinan, China.
October 22, 2018
. China becomes world leader in venture capital, ahead of the US and almost twice
the rest of the world's $53.4 billion YTD. The Crunchbase report says the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the
world is undergoing a major transformation: it is now driven by China instead of the US.
Isolating strategic anti-imperial power via regional wars, sets the stage for the 'final assault' –
regime change by cop or nuclear war
good article.
Only idiot can believe that nuclear war can be won, IMHO. Elites aren't suicidal, oh no. On the contrary.
Can they make a mistake and cause that war, definitely.
Which brings us to the important part:
Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations;
its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers
and war makers lack popular support.
Agree, but, that's
exactly
the reason I disagree with:
There are reasons to hope!
No need to be pedantic, of course there is always a reason for hope.
But, I see it as
so
fertile ground for making
The MISTAKE
.
Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations;
its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers
and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope!
It's when the elite war mongers' backs are up against the wall that they come up with a cleverly designed
false flag attack to rally public support for war. They are more dangerous now than ever.
Agree about Russia and China, however Iran needs to be viewed not as a play for oil or the Islamic crowd but
driven wholly and solely by Israel. Iran is not a threat to US in any context, only Israel.
question:
If the relatively small tariffs on Chinese goods amount to 'direct attacks on China', then what are the
massive tariffs by China on US goods?
The "Chess men" behind "The Wall Street Economy" have stated a few times that the only way to remain the
dominant economy is to first: convince rivals that resistance is futile, and second:
to atomize any
potential rival
(Ghaddaffi is a clear example).
Breaking up Russia has been on the to-do list for
decades, and I believe that the Chess Men have no idea what to do about containing China, and are clearly
flat-footed, and
desperate
kidnapping a Chinese business executive.
The Wall Street Economy depended on cheap Chinese labor it's own profits, and that was Ok until .?
Until the writing on the Wall became ledgible .
The smell of genuine fear is in the air.
" The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope! "
Is popular support
needed to get a people in a war mood ?
Both Pearl Harbour and Sept 11 demonstrate, in my opinion, that it is not very difficult to create a war
mood.
Yet, if another Sept 11 would do the trick, I wonder.
Sept 11 has been debated without without interruption since Sept 11.
After the 1946 USA Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour the USA government succeeded in preventing a
similar discussion.
Until now the west, Deep State, NATO, EU did not succeed in provoking Russia or China.
Each time they tried something, in my opinion they did this several times, Russia showed its military
superiority, at the same time taking care not to hurt public opinion in the west.
Is not it amazing that the morally miserable US, a "power in search of world domination through force and
violence," is officially governed by self-avowed pious X-tians. What kind of corruption among the high-level
clergy protects the satanists Pompeo, Bush, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Blair and such from excommunication?
"Washington does little to nothing to restore peace and help the devastated region to recover from the
long war, while its [US] airstrikes
continue to rack up civilian deaths
At the same time, the US
military presence at the Al-Tanf airbase and the "armed gangs" around it prevent refugees from returning
home."
– Nothing new. The multi-denominational Syria has been pounded by the US-supported "moderate" terrorists
(armed with US-provided arms and with UK-provided chemical weaponry) to satisfy the desires of
Israel-firsters, arm-dealers and the multitude of war-profiteers that have been fattening their pockets at
the US/UK taxpayers' expense.
"Timber Sycamore" [initiated by Obama] is the most important arms trafficking operation in History. It
involves at least 17 governments. The transfer of weapons, meant for jihadist organizations, is carried out
by Silk Way Airlines, a Azerbaïdjan public company of cargo planes."
@Godfree Roberts
Huawei can announce whatever, there are much more experienced adversaries(IBM, intel and ARM) who can`t beat
nV in computation, and especially in integration of silicon. Guess who`s running inference and computer
vision in all these car autopilots.
I think we could have an economic collapse like the Soviet Union had , or like Argentina had in 2001 with
the " corralito "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corralito
.
Being the complex and global society that we are , it would be a disaster , it would produce hunger ,
misery and all types of local wars .
"Notwithstanding the limits of US power and its failure to topple regimes "
Have to agree with that
statement. Seriously, wherein is this vaunted "superpower" that our American politicians always yap about?
All I've seen in my lifetime is our military getting its butt kicked in Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq,
Afghanistan. What, besides insanity and hubris, makes them think they could win anything much less a war
against Iran, China or Russia?
Mostly accurate, but 'closed protectionist society' ! Hardly. It's still very difficult to buy any
manufactured goods made in this country. Of course this is part of the World economic circle countries use
the US Dollar for all trade. They need dollars. We can print them and receive real goods in return. This has
been going around and around for decades. It may come to an end in the not-too-distant future, but it has a
lot of inertia.
@jilles dykstra
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship,
or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce
the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY
COUNTRY."
The only threat to patriotic Americans is Zionism which has ruled the U.S. since it took control over the
money supply and the taxes via the privately owned Zionist FED and IRS and has given America nothing to wars
and economic destruction since the FED and IRS were put in place by the Zionist banking kabal in 1913 and
both are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
The threat is not from China or Russia or Iran etc., the threat is from within
the U.S. government which is controlled in every facet by the Zionists and dual citizens and is as foreign
to the American people as if it were from MARS!
Until the American people wake up to the fact that we are slaves on a Zionist plantation and are used as
pawns in the Zionist goal of a satanic Zionist NWO and abolish the FED and IRS and break the chains of
slavery that the FED and IRS have place upon us, until then nothing will change and the wars and economic
destruction by the Zionist kabal will continue!
Read The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed and The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman and The
Protocols of Zion, to see the Zionist satanic NWO plan.
Lost me at Kurd takeover of northern Iraq/Syria. The Kurds have defacto owned those areas since 1991, and
earlier. Saddam gassing the Kurds didn't accomplish anything except for making himself a target, no Arab
lived in those areas, the Kurds would kill them.
Nov 28, 2018 Belt & Road Billionaire in Massive Bribery Scandal
The bribery trial of Dr. Patrick Ho, a
pitchman for a Chinese energy company, lifts the lid on how the Chinese regime relies on graft to cut Belt
and Road deals in its global push for economic and geopolitical dominance.
I agree with Bob Sykes' commentary over on Instapundit:
Well, our "anti-ISIS" model in eastern Syria consists of defending ISIS against attacks by the Syrian
government, allowing them to pump and export Syrian oil for their profit, arming them and allowing them
to recruit new fighters. I suppose that means we should be arming the Taliban.
ISIS was created by the CIA to fight against Assad. But they slipped the leash and became the fighting
force for the dissident Sunni Arabs all along the Euphrates Valley. We only began to oppose them when
their rebellion reached the outskirts of Baghdad, and even then the bulk of the fighting was done by
Iraq's Shias and Iran. Now we are transferring them, or many of them, into secure (for ISIS) areas of
Iraq.
The three U.S. presidents, six secretaries of defense and five chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff are, in fact, war criminals, in exactly the same sense that Hitler, Goebels, Goering, Himmler et
al. were war criminals.
Those presidents, secretaries and generals launched wars of aggression
against Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Yemen not one of which threatened us
in any way. They engineered coups d'état against two friendly governments, Egypt and Turkey.
Now the
fake American, anti-American neocons want to attack Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and even Russia and
China.
Green needs to get his head out of his arse. We, the US, are the great rogue terrorist state. We are
the evil empire. We are the chief source of death and destruction in the world. How many hundreds of
thousands of civilians have we murdered in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia? How many cities have
we bombed flat like Raqqa and Mosel. Putin is a saint compared to any US President.
Iran has always been at the center of the Great Game, the key square on the board to block
Eurasia.You must either control Afghanistan AND Pakistan or Iran.
With Pakistan now in the SCO, Iran is a US imperative.
Israels antipathy is secondary and a useful foil, not the primary motive.
Read MacKinder, the imperial power has changed, not the strategy.
How is it possible for anyone to write an article titled:
A World of Multiple Detonators of Global Wars
without mentioning the Principal Detonator of Global Wars?? The Elephant!
The United States of America is no longer a Sovereign Nation.
The Local Political Power Elite (C. Wright Mills term), serve, are Minions, of the Zionist Jewish
Financial Terrorist Initiators and Controllers of the Global New World Order.
I would express this point in stronger terms, but I have not yet finished my coffee. The "Mulitiple
Detonators" Petras discusses are useless unless Triggered by the Global Controllers.
A Slight Digression: maybe:
Petras may have written his exposé this way, understanding that he might safely avoid mention of the
anti-Semitic (they hate Palestinians and other Arabs – actual Semites), Zionist Land Thieves, because a
clueless Anarchist would appear and complete his article for him. If that is the case, I want half of the $
Unz is paying Petras for this article.
In Conclusion: and by the number###:
1. The American Power Elite and servile Politicians in America's Knesset in Washington DC, do not go to the
Bathroom, without permission from their Zionist Oligarch masters.
2. The American Gauleters, Quislings, (better known as Traitors), serve the Rothschild and other Foreign
Oligarchs. Recently, only 1, of 100 'Senators' demanded that there be a discussion of the Bill to send
another $35 Billion gift to the Zionist occupiers of Palestine. Poor
Senator Rand Paul
. How many ribs
of his remain to be broken?
We the American people, have one Senator. And he has a great father.
3. Textbooks, Entertainment from Hollywood (key to all mind control), even Dictionaries, have been
ruthlessly censored.
4.
Our elected Zionist slaves in Congress, and all State and local governing bodies, live in fear
of saying (accidentally), some truth, and ending up working at Walmart or 7-11, (if they are lucky).
5. Our young are effectively brainwashed in their schools; they have already been removed from their
parents.
6. Our politicians are bribed with our own tax money (re-routed by the Zionists AIPAC, etc.).
7.
The Zionist Entity has huge Financial Resources
. They should be giving us 'Financial $$ Aid,
not the other way around. Since NAFTA, we have entire cities & tons of infrastructure to rebuild.
Excuse me
: Girlfriend thinks I should go to work.
Petras, I just fleshed out your, otherwise, promising article. You must understand – that
the ethnic
cleansing – genocide, against the Palestinian Nation, by the Terrorist Zionist Oligarchs, is the greatest
single crime being committed on our Planet.
All other crimes stem from this one.
We Americans must Restore Our Republic!
John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, M L King, Malcolm X. John Lennon; we are late, but we are coming.
The threat is not from China or Russia or Iran etc., the threat is from within the U.S. government
which is controlled in every facet by the Zionists and dual citizens and is as foreign to the American
people as if it were from MARS!
One comment:
Until the American people wake up to the fact that we are slaves on a Zionist plantation and are used
as pawns in the Zionist goal of a satanic Zionist NWO and abolish the FED and IRS and break the chains of
slavery that the FED and IRS have place upon us, until then nothing will change and the wars and economic
destruction by the Zionist kabal will continue!
In order to accomplish the above
, we American Citizen Patriots – must Restore Our Republic – that,
with our Last Constitutional President,
John F. Kennedy,
was destroyed by the Zionist Oligarchs and
their American underling traitors, in a hail of bullets, on November 22, 1963.
@Miro23
" same sense that Hitler, Goebels, Goering, Himmler et al. were war criminals. "
Why were they war criminals ?
Because of the Neurenberg farce ?; farce according to the chairman of the USA Supreme Court in 1945:
Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme
Court Justices', New York, 1983
Churchill and Lindemann in fact murdered some two million German civilians, women, children, old men. Not a
crime ?
Churchill refused the May 1941 Rudolf Hess peace proposal, not a crime ?
FDR deliberately provoked Pearl Harbour, some 2700 casualties, his pretcxt for war, not a crime ?
900.000 German hunger deaths between the 1918 cease fire and Versailles, the British food blockade, not a
crime ?
Will these wild accusations ever stop ?
I am all for the mother of all wars; however, it isn't going to come anytime soon, nay, not in our lifetime
but when it does appear on the next century's horizon, it would be cathartic to all concerned. Rejoice!
Europe is realigning. England leaving Euro. French population is in upheaval. Eventually France will leave
the Euro also.Most of German tourists now are going to Croatia. Italy is loosing tourists.
Italy living standard is declining. Germany is being pushed inevitably toward cooperation with Russia. Only
supporter of Ukraine will remain USA. Ukraine will be only burden.
Brussels power will evaporate. NATO will remain only on paper and will cease to be reality.
.
This will be great step toward peace in the world.
US is treating its allies as used toilet paper.
Obviously Kashogi was sentenced to death for high treason in absence. The sentence was carried out on Saudi
Arabia's territory. So in reality it is nobody's business.
All hula-buu did happen because he was a reporter working for warmongering Zionist New york times.
@Durruti
I agree with you partly, especially when it comes to the US regarding Zionism and the power of the Israel
lobby to influence US foreign policy and even domestic policy.
But when it comes to Global governance, you have a somewhat narrow minded approach.
Most of the ills today that happen in the world, is driven by the NEW WORLD ORDER OF NEOLIBERAL
GLOBALIZATION.
Unrelated phenomena, such as the destruction in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria), the
destruction of Yugoslavia, the coup in Ukraine and the Greek economic catastrophe are a consequence of this
NWO expansion. NWO expansion is the phasing out of national sovereignty (through economic and/or military
violence) and its replacement by a kind of transnational sovereignty administered by a Transnational Elite.
This is the network of the elites mainly based in the G7 countries, which control the world economic and
political/ military institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU, European Central Bank, NATO, UN and so on), as
well as the global media that set the agenda of the 'world community'.
The US is an important part of this since it provides the Military Means to integrate countries that do not
"comply" with the NWO dictates.
The Zionists carry a lot of blame and are part of that drive for this NWO, but there are others, most of
them in the US and Europe.
Here's a good link to an article if you have time, with good info about NWO & Trasnational corporations
that are mainly to blame about all the worlds and misery in our world today.
@WHAT
back door Intel
,
embedded ARM
Open source Red Hat-IBM
Hummm?.
I am not so sure, Mr. What. Experience may not mean much to abused IAI consumers. even if IAI catches up
to the exponential fundamentals achieved by Huawei consumers might prefer back-door-free equipment and
Operating Systems.
Russian times reported a few weeks ago that Russia has a quite different new processor and an OS that
does not use any IAI stuff and is developing a backup Internet for Russians which it expects to expand
regionally,
"What we have then, are criminal syndicates masquerading as philanthropic enterprises
Norman Dodd, director of research for the (U.S.) REECE COMMITTEE in its attempt to investigate tax exempt
foundations, stated:
"The Foundation world is a coordinated, well-directed system, the purpose of which is to ensure that the
wealth of our country shall be used to divorce it from the ideas which brought it into being."
The Rothschilds rule the U.S. through the foundations, the Council on foreign Relations, and the Federal
Reserve System, with no serious challenges to their power. Expensive 'political campaigns' are routinely
conducted, with carefully screened candidates who are pledged to the program of the WORLD ORDER. Should they
deviate from the program, they would have an 'accident', be framed on a sex charge, or indicted on some
financial irregularity.
Senator Moynihan stated in his book, "Loyalties", "A British friend, wise in the ways of the world, put
it thus: "They are now on page 16 of the Plan." Moynihan prudently did not ask what page 17 would bring.
"Tavistock's pioneer work in behavioural science along Freudian lines of 'controlling' humans established
it as the world center of FOUNDATION ideology.
[MORE]
Its network extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Standford Research
Institute, Esalen, MIT, Hudson Institute, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Centre of Strategic and International
Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept personnel are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand
and Mitre corporations.
(at the time of writing, 1992) Today the Tavistock Institute operates a $6 billion a year network
of foundations in the U.S., all of it funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. Ten major institutions are
under its direct control, with 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks which
originate many types of programs to increase the control of the WORLD ORDER over the American people.
The personnel of the FOUNDATIONS are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these
Tavistock controlled institutions.
A network of secret groups – the MONT PELERIN SOCIETY, TRILATERAL COMMISSION, DITCHLEY FOUNDATION,
and CLUB OF ROME is the conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network.
Tavistock Institute developed the mass brain-washing techniques which were first used
experimentally on AMERICAN prisoners of war in KOREA.
Its experiments in crowd control methods have been widely used on the American public, a
surreptitious but nevertheless outrageous assault on human freedom by modifying individual behaviour
through topical psychology.
A German refugee, Kurt Lewin, became director of Tavistock in 1932. He came to the U.S. in 1933 as
a 'refugee', the first of many infiltrators, and set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which
originated the propaganda campaign to turn the American public against Germany and involve the U.S. in
WWII.
In 1938, Roosevelt executed a secret agreement with Churchill which in effect ceded U.S.
sovereignty to England, because it agreed to let Special Operations Executive control U.S. policies.
To implement this agreement, Roosevelt sent General Donovan to London for indoctrination before
setting up the OSS (now the CIA) under the aegis of SOE-SIS. The entire OSS program, as well as the
CIA has always worked on guidelines set up by the Tavistock Institute.
Tavistock Institute originated the mass civilian bombing raids [against the German people] carried
out by [the ALL LIES] Roosevelt and Churchill as a clinical experiment in mass terror, keeping records
of the results as they watched the "guinea pigs" reacting under "controlled laboratory conditions".
All Tavistock and American foundation techniques have a single goal – to break down the
psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the WORLD
ORDER.
Any technique which helps to break down the family unit, and family inculcated principles of
religion, honor, patriotism and sexual behaviour, is used by the Tavistock scientists as weapons of
crowd control.
The methods of Freudian psychotherapy induce permanent mental illness in those who undergo this
treatment by destabilizing their character. The victim is then advised to 'establish new rituals of
personal interactions', that is, to indulge in brief sexual encounters which actually set the
participants adrift with no stable personal relationships in their lives – destroying their ability to
establish or maintain a family.
Tavistock Institute has developed such power in the U.S. that no one achieves prominence in any
field unless he has been trained in behavioural science at Tavistock or one of its subsidiaries.
Tavistock maintains 2 schools at Frankfort, birthplace of the Rothschilds, the FRANKFURT SCHOOL, and
the Sigmund Freud Institute.
The 'experiment' in compulsory racial integration in the U.S. was organized by Ronald Lippert of
the OSS (forerunner of CIA) and the American Jewish Congress, and director of child training at the
Commission on Community Relations.
The program was designed to break down the individual's sense of personal knowledge in his
identity, his racial heritage. Through the Stanford Research Institute, Tavistock controls the
National Education Association.
The Institute of Social Research at the Natl Training Lab brain washes the leading executives of
business and government.
Another prominent Tavistock operation is the WHARTON SCHOOL OF FINANCE.
A single common denominator identifies the common Tavistock strategy – the use of drugs such as the
infamous MK Ultra program of the CIA, directed by Dr Sidney Gottlieb, in which unsuspecting CIA
officials were given LSD and their reactions studied like guinea pigs, resulting in several deaths –
no one was ever indicted.
(Source of info: author Eustace Mullins "The World Order: Our Secret Rulers" 2nd ed. 1992. He
dedicated his book "to American patriots and their passion for liberty". note: No copyright
restrictions)
@Agent76
Excellent video. More people need to see this to understand how corrupt the China Totalitarian state works
behind the scenes along with the US as part of the Globalization NWO movement to enrich the few and
impoverish the rest of the world population.
"... Anything that gets Kristol out of public life is good. Sometimes collateral damage is part of the package. ..."
"... I remember these jackasses screaming for an American Empire. How many people did they help kill with their braying for war? They pushed failed, murderous policies and showed little to no regard for the people they would use as cannon fodder. ..."
"... as Tucker Carlson noted, the Kristols, the Boots and others only really turned against Trump when he accused Bush of lying us into war in the GOP debates. That's what turned them off: the possibility that he wouldn't keep the guns blazing. ..."
"... Now they're out of a job? Gosh, too bad. I guess they should learn how to code. Maybe they need to rent a U-Haul and leave town. ..."
"... If this is a sign that neoconservatives are losing influence, I say it's a good thing ..."
"... These are the guys who are totally cool with $40k a year factory jobs going to Mexico -- that's creative destruction -- but act as if it's some kind of crisis when they lose their $200k editing job. ..."
McCarthy's analysis is sound but there are some variables he either misses or omits
concerning TWS's demise: See my "8 Thoughts" on the matter, including, for example: " TWS
was a strong voice of neoconservatism–which emerged in the 1970s as a theory, but only
matured into an applied political praxis during a post-Clinton presidency–and even
then–only after September 10, 2001 . but when Clinton lost to Trump, TWS lost a lot of
its original enemies, hence its original purpose ."
http://www.bookbread.com/2018/12/06/8-thoughts-on-the-new-york-times-article-about-the-demise-of-the-weekly-standard/
His wrongness rises almost to the level of genius: he is the Einstein of wrong
predictions, the Machiavelli of outrageous proposals ("regime change in China"), the Napoleon
of unnecessary wars.
No sorrow here. I can't forget their cheerleading for stupid neocon wars in which so many
died, or the nasty things they said about such men as Buchanan who favored a more sensible
foreign policy.
Nah, bro. I remember these jackasses screaming for an American Empire. How many people did
they help kill with their braying for war? They pushed failed, murderous policies and showed
little to no regard for the people they would use as cannon fodder.
Bear in mind this, all you liberals looking for "good conservatives", as Tucker Carlson
noted, the Kristols, the Boots and others only really turned against Trump when he accused
Bush of lying us into war in the GOP debates. That's what turned them off: the possibility
that he wouldn't keep the guns blazing.
Now they're out of a job? Gosh, too bad. I guess they should learn how to code. Maybe they
need to rent a U-Haul and leave town.
If this is a sign that neoconservatives are losing influence, I say it's a good thing. I
remember when WS first started publishing during the '96 presidential campaign and it going
all out for Steve Forbes. Flat-taxes, shining city on a hill, come one come all immigration
policy, beacon of light to the rest of the world, blah, blah, blah. While they were obsessing
about taxes and attempting to democratize the rest of the world, our culture was quickly advancing to the bottom.
These are the guys who are totally cool with $40k a year factory jobs going to Mexico --
that's creative destruction -- but act as if it's some kind of crisis when they lose their
$200k editing job.
I'm sure there are some good people there, and I feel bad for families, but Kristol,
Podhoretz and Hayes can go to hell.
From comments: "Bill Kristol is possibly the single most delusional figure in our public life. His wrongness rises almost to
the level of genius: he is the Einstein of wrong predictions, the Machiavelli of outrageous proposals ("regime change in China"),
the Napoleon of unnecessary wars. Why anyone takes him seriously, except as an example of what *not* to do, is a mystery."
Unfortunately, this does nothing to diminish the influence of neoconservative foreign policy – those writers will keep
propagandizing from the Washington Free Beacon, Washington Examiner, Commentary, National Review, etc
Notable quotes:
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... openly despising your potential customers is never a successful business strategy. ..."
"... Stephen Hayes called Rand Paul a Russian Stooge because he didn't want a confrontational policy. This is typical of the stuff they printed. They were not interested in any sort of serious debate. They were interested in shouting down opposition to their Invade the world, Invite the world, In hoc to the world policy. ..."
"... Boo-hoo Sorry if I'm more saddened for a lot of brave men and women in uniform senselessly losing their lives over some chickenhawk writers having to find a new job on the DC cocktail circuit because they can't work for the smug, elitists ideologues anymore who used their worthless "Standard" to inspire one of the dumbest foreign policy disasters in American history ..."
The Weekly Standard is no more. Its parent company is shutting the magazine down
after 23 years. It is hard to imagine that the magazine that was the home to such greats such
as Andrew Ferguson, Matt Labash, and Christopher Caldwell no longer exists. Those are the times
in which we live.
Good riddance. The Weekly Standard peddles a brand of conservatism that has been largely
repudiated by the Republican Party's rank and fle. Rather than accept reality, self-assess,
take stock, and possibly change the WS doubled down on neoconservatism in a particularly
arrogant and insulting way. Gary (above) is absolutely correct – openly despising your
potential customers is never a successful business strategy.
Oh, yeah – Kristol wants to run for President in 2020. And this guy thinks Trump is
delusional!
No sorrow here. I can't forget their cheerleading for stupid neocon wars in which so many
died, or the nasty things they said about such men as Buchanan who favored a more sensible
foreign policy.
Stephen Hayes called Rand Paul a Russian Stooge because he didn't want a confrontational
policy. This is typical of the stuff they printed. They were not interested in any sort of
serious debate. They were interested in shouting down opposition to their Invade the world,
Invite the world, In hoc to the world policy.
Why should I mourn this jingoist publication's demise? It's not very often you see justice
apportioned in this world, but here it is, even if too little and too late.
No, this should be celebrated. The only thing that would make this better is seeing them
walked out of the building with boxes full of personal effects in hand, as security makes
sure they don't steal any office supplies.
Boo-hoo Sorry if I'm more saddened for a lot of brave men and women in uniform
senselessly losing their lives over some chickenhawk writers having to find a new job on the
DC cocktail circuit because they can't work for the smug, elitists ideologues anymore who
used their worthless "Standard" to inspire one of the dumbest foreign policy disasters in
American history . They also used their rag to trash any conservatives who disagreed
with their call for endless wars as weak Neville Chamberlins reincarnated or un-American
agents of Putin. I feel nothing but contempt for them all. Their names will live on in infamy
as a scourge to our sadly dying republic.
Polichinello knows how to pile it on: "Let them learn to code." Priceless.
However, RD is right. The loss of any publication is painful. My pain actually began when
the mechanical workers–printers, engravers, stereotypers, etc. were done in by
progress. And now I get to see friends at the former St. Pete Times get the axe.
Besides supporting that nation destroying (US and Iraq war) and being an Israel Firster, Mr.
Dreher, here's a 2010 ad Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney producing, implying that Obama DOJ
lawyers who represented GITMO detainees were terrorists. They called them the "Al Qaeda 7"
It's funny that Bill Kristol is now persona non grata in the conservative movement,
considering he really is just a standard issue Republican. There's no difference between him
and Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers
I read (can't say 100%) that the Kochs opposed the Iraq War. They're not much for overseas
crusading, although they agree with neocons on immigration, trade, and caving to PC.
Walker talked a little about immigration restriction during his brief presidential
campaign, one of the reasons his donor money dried up.
Trump has reoriented the party on its immigration, trade, and foreign policy stances, and
Kristol isn't a God-guns-gays culture warrior, so, yeah, makes sense he would drift away
(aside from his personality).
Noah172
December 14, 2018 at 11:13 pm
This is not the demise I would have wanted for the WS. I would have preferred its writers be
fired and replaced with immigrants of color. That would have been delicious.
******************************************************
Yes! Use H1B visas to replace the WS staff with foreign workers at a far lower salary, and
force the staff to train them before they're let go.
It is extremely hypocritical for guys like Podhoretz to Moanin and complain about the way
the magazine was cancelled. He admits that it never made money but thinks some
multi-billionaire should continue to keep it afloat anyway. Talk about corporate welfare!
These guys advocated an extreme form of globalism that resulted in American jobs being
shipped overseas and economic hardship for millions of Americans, all in the name of
profitability. Why should the WS being any different?
To Kristol, Podhoretz, Hayes, etc: Tough luck – that's the way it goes. The
marketplace decided and you couldn't cut it. Why aren't you cheering cheering that decision?
Don't the rules apply to you too? I guess it's different when the shoe is on the other
foot.
George you nailed it. There's a special place in hell for people like the editors of the
weekly standard – I believe that wholeheartedly and not metaphorically.
What's weird to me is to see everyone decrying Kristol and his Weekly Standard colleagues as
"the Establishment." If that were still the case, the Standard would still be flying and
Kristol would be cruising. But no, Kristol and the neocons are now old news; has-beens; last
month's cold cuts.
Thus must I say to Trump and his fans: Congrats! You are now the GOP Establishment. Have
fun being able to please nobody. Have fun disappointing everybody. Have fun being held
accountable for bad policy decisions and the fate of a major political party. This is the
power, leadership, and influence you wanted, so you got it. We'll soon find out if history
remembers you less fondly than Bill Kristol.
Each passing year just raises the probability that Trump, being a U.S. president, will
launch a foolish war. When he does, and when you have to contort yourselves like circus
freaks to justify it, some of us are going to be quite amused.
One problem with this fat warmonger (and his wife Victoria Nuland) is that nether he not his children were ever forced to take M16
and fight for the policies he promotes. In other words he is a typical chickenhawk, a lobbyist of MIC on good salary. In some
way this fat pig bellicosity is aside effect of abolishing universal draft. He also probably was not a fighter and never
was severely beaten by super fighters in school or university. A typical nice Jewish kid.
Attempt to build global neoliberal empire reserving for the USA dominant position ("Full spectrum dominance") cost dear to
the common Americans and now it is clear that this initiative of neocons and their paymasters (financial oligarchy and military industrial
complex -- the neoliberal elite in other words) failed.
Kagan might be a talented propagandist of "full spectrum dominance" neoconservative policies, but it is important to understand
that intellectually he is a lightweight: he believes his own propaganda.
From comments: "When one sees Pompeo's lips move about a new American world order, it is Kagan talking with his neo con
war mongering."
Notable quotes:
"... Call a spade a spade: This guy has been part of and feeding the political class with the arguments to continue performing the 'Crime of Aggression' and doing that as part of preserving US primacy doesn't excuse him from the 'Crime of Aggression' part of the ICC mandate. Most of those guys are very much aware of that as demonstrated by Bolton's attack on the ICC. ..."
"... The Obama administration's point person for the overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland, Kagan's wife. Even as the administration's duplicity was intercepted by the recording of her discussing who the U.S. would install as the new leaders, it would be interesting to hear the pillow talk of these two. ..."
"... The theory they embrace is that of an American New World Order, and a bipartisan practice of economic and military Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet to enforce that hegemony against the democratic aspirations of others – and to maintain support domestically for it, necessarily against democratic accountability for war to the American people. ..."
"... "the willingness to apply that power, with all the pain and the suffering, the uncertainties and the errors, the failures and follies, the immorality and brutality, the lost lives and the lost treasure." One can feel his depraved, almost prurient, excitement at the wretchedness he would inflict. ..."
"... Skip the geopolitical arguments. What I see in the photo is an obviously well-fed desk jockey from the Swamp exhorting us to waste yet more blood and treasure on his grandiose political vision. ..."
"... Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ..."
"... warmongers are opportunists, and democrats are as supportive of war efforts as GOP. This guy is a traitor of the people of this country, period. ..."
"... One should understand that committing to trillions of dollars in military spending each decade pretty much eliminates any possibility of true liberalism spreading. ..."
"... When one sees pompeo's lips move about a new American world order, it is kagan talking with his neo con war mongering. ..."
Today, Kagan is an influential scholar at the Brookings Institution, a columnist at The Washington Post , and a member
of the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Policy Board. Despite being known as a neoconservative, his appeal spans party and
ideological divides. Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms
of electoral loyalties.
As a writer and public intellectual, Kagan has skillfully crafted historical narratives and strategic assessments supporting his
overarching neoconservative vision for U.S. foreign policy. His 1996 Foreign Affairs article with Bill Kristol, "
Toward a Neo-Reaganite
Foreign Policy ," still resonates today as a concise hallmark statement of that approach to America's role in the world. With
a long list of prominent books and articles following in that vein, it is little wonder that Andrew Bacevich called him "the chief
foreign policy theorist of the neoconservative movement."
Kagan's newest book,
The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World , fits nicely into his corpus. It is a spirited defense of the
"American-led liberal world order" by one of its most cogent and articulate advocates. It is part curated history, part philippic
for his preferred strategic vision for the United States. In this small volume, Kagan argues that the enlightened order America created
after World War II has allowed for much progress in the world. But this order is not natural, and its great benefits have been "made
possible by the protection afforded liberalism within the geographical and geopolitical space created by American power." To Kagan,
this liberal order is "fragile and impermanent," requiring constant care by its architect and beneficiary, the United States. He
sees the liberal order as being "like a garden, artificial and forever threatened by the forces of nature." Thus "preserving it requires
a persistent, unending struggle against the vines and weeds that are constantly working to undermine it from within and overwhelm
it from without." Otherwise, the jungle will "grow back and engulf us all."
The problem with the book is its reliance on some questionable historical and contemporary assessments, not to mention that it
fails to really make the case for the necessity and desirability of the liberal order in today's world.
Kagan begins The Jungle Grows Back by noting that the last 70 years of peace, prosperity, and the expansion of democracy
and respect for individual rights have been an exception to the historical norm. Far from being the natural course or inevitable,
this progress required something special and unique: that a liberal democratic country like the United States, with so many geopolitical
and economic advantages, rose to international prominence after World War II. Not only that, but, as Kagan argues, American leaders
were willing to use their great power at this special moment in history to act differently and to create a new and unique world order.
Rather than merely defend its narrow national interests, the United States created a liberal international order that it would
take responsibility for upholding and protecting. Kagan argues that this approach wasn't, as some might argue, directed at the Soviet
Union or anyone else in particular (though he admits the rise of the Soviet threat made it easier for Americans to accept it even
as the strategy became more difficult to implement). Instead, "its chief purpose was to prevent a return to the economic, political,
and strategic circumstances that had given rise to the last war." Thus, Kagan believes this internationalist approach was rooted
in a realism about the nature of geopolitics in the 20th century and a realization that the world was a jungle that required "meeting
power with greater power." American leaders had learned from World War II that they had to adopt a new approach to the world, one
that created, in Dean Acheson's words, "an environment for freedom." To do otherwise would be to let disorder reign or for others
to order the international system to the detriment of American interests and values.
Call a spade a spade: This guy has been part of and feeding the political class with the arguments to continue performing
the 'Crime of Aggression' and doing that as part of preserving US primacy doesn't excuse him from the 'Crime of Aggression' part
of the ICC mandate. Most of those guys are very much aware of that as demonstrated by Bolton's attack on the ICC.
"Despite being known as a neoconservative, his appeal spans party and ideological divides. Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support
for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms of electoral loyalties."
The Obama administration's point person for the overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland, Kagan's
wife. Even as the administration's duplicity was intercepted by the recording of her discussing who the U.S. would install as
the new leaders, it would be interesting to hear the pillow talk of these two.
The theory they embrace is that of an American New World Order, and a bipartisan practice of economic and military Full
Spectrum Dominance of the planet to enforce that hegemony against the democratic aspirations of others – and to maintain support
domestically for it, necessarily against democratic accountability for war to the American people.
Given that the liberal cultural order in the Homeland is so quickly degrading, the imposition of it internationally is likely
to become increasingly infected by poor judgment as well as resistance to it increasing.
It used to be in popular entertainment that the villains were interested in ruling the world, madmen with megalomania. That
enemy is now within.
"the willingness to apply that power, with all the pain and the suffering, the uncertainties and the errors, the failures
and follies, the immorality and brutality, the lost lives and the lost treasure." One can feel his depraved, almost prurient,
excitement at the wretchedness he would inflict.
Skip the geopolitical arguments. What I see in the photo is an obviously well-fed desk jockey from the Swamp exhorting us
to waste yet more blood and treasure on his grandiose political vision.
"Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life
in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't
want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all,
it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether
it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives,
and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)
"Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms of electoral
loyalties."
It is probably due to the fact that most people at that time thought Clinton was going to win. So his support for Clinton proved
2 things: warmongers are opportunists, and democrats are as supportive of war efforts as GOP. This guy is a traitor
of the people of this country, period.
One should understand that committing to trillions of dollars in military spending each decade pretty much eliminates any possibility
of true liberalism spreading.
"The same containment strategy appears to be what the Iraq War was about: contain the Iranian Muslim Revolution from not
spilling over from Iraq into US ally nations: "
Had there never been an Iraq War – Muslim revolution could never have spilled over from Iraq to any other nations – because
Saddam wasn't going to allow any Muslim revolution from happening within his borders.
..to his emergence in the post-Cold War era as arguably the leading intellectual advocate for a foreign policy of "benevolent
global hegemony" -- what scholars call "primacy."
An "intellectual" war monger? A "benevolent" Imperialist? ...
"The same containment strategy appears to be what the Iraq War was about: contain the Iranian Muslim Revolution from not spilling
over from Iraq into US ally nations: Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan. Afghanistan is just another buffer country to fight the
Iranian stealth war."
I presume that history started in 2003 and that you have never heard of Saddam Hussein (the guy who fought a long war with
Iran aided by the US) or the Sunni Taliban who ruled Afghanistan and were opposed to Shia Iran. Except for the fraud and deceit
done by the neocon controlled US regime of the time, these illegal wars would not have been possible. Pick up some real history
books for a change. Don't learn about the Soviet Union from the Pravda.
The subtitle of this effusively admiring biography of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Grand Strategist, does not reflect its
true purpose. A more accurate one might be this: "Just as Smart as the Other Guy." The other guy, of course, is Henry Kissinger. The
implicit purpose of Justin Vaïsse's book is to argue that in his mastery of strategic thought and practice, Brzezinski ranks as Kissinger's
equal.
Notable quotes:
"... That Brzezinski, who died last year at age 89, lived a life that deserves to be recounted and appraised is certainly the case. Born in Warsaw in 1928 to parents with ties to Polish nobility, Brzezinski had a peripatetic childhood. ..."
"... After graduating from McGill, Brzezinski set his sights on Harvard, which at the time was the very archetype of a "Cold War university." Senior faculty and young scholars on the make were volunteering to advise the national-security apparatus just then forming in Washington. For many of them, the Soviet threat appeared to eclipse all other questions and fields of inquiry. In this setting, Brzezinski flourished. Even before becoming an American citizen, he was thoroughly Americanized, imbued with the mind-set that prevailed in circles where members of the power elite mixed and mingled. Partially funded by the CIA, the Russian Research Center, Brzezinski's home at Harvard, was one of those places. ..."
"... From his time in Cambridge, he emerged committed, in his own words, to "nothing less than formulating a coherent strategy for the United States, so that we could eventually dismantle the Soviet bloc" and, not so incidentally, thereby liberate Poland. To this cause, the young Brzezinski devoted himself with single-minded energy. ..."
"... Convinced that the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc were internally fragile, he believed that economic and cultural interaction with the West would ultimately lead to their collapse. The idea was to project strength without provoking confrontation, while patiently exerting indirect influence. ..."
"... This limited academic influence probably did not bother Zbig; he never saw himself as a mere scholar. He was a classic in-and-outer, rotating effortlessly from university campuses to political campaigns, and from government service to plummy think-tank billets. According to Vaïsse, Brzezinski never courted the media. Even so, he demonstrated a pronounced talent for getting himself in front of TV cameras, becoming a frequent guest on programs like Meet the ..."
"... Toward the end of his life, Brzezinski even had a Twitter account. His last tweet, from May 2017, both summarizes the essence of his worldview and expresses his dismay regarding the presidency of Donald Trump: "Sophisticated US leadership is the sine qua non of a stable world order. However, we lack the former while the latter is getting worse." ..."
"... Although not an ideologue, Brzezinski was a liberal Democrat of a consistently hawkish persuasion. Committed to social justice at home, he was also committed to toughness abroad. In the 1960s, he supported US intervention in Vietnam, treated the domino theory as self-evidently true, and argued that, with American credibility on the line, the United States had no alternative but to continue prosecuting the war. Even after the war ended, Vaïsse writes, Brzezinski "did not view Vietnam as a mistake." ..."
"... Yet Vietnam did nudge Brzezinski to reconsider some of his own assumptions. In the early 1970s, with an eye toward forging a new foreign policy that might take into account some of the trauma caused by Vietnam, he organized the Trilateral Commission. Apart from expending copious amounts of Rockefeller money, the organization produced little of substance. For Brzezinski, however, it proved a smashing success. It was there that he became acquainted with Jimmy Carter, a Georgia governor then contemplating a run for the presidency in 1976. ..."
"... When Carter won, he rewarded Brzezinski by appointing him national-security adviser, the job that had vaulted Kissinger to the upper ranks of global celebrity. ..."
"... Because of Brzezinski's limited influence on foreign policy after Carter, Vaïsse's case for installing him in the pantheon of master strategists therefore rests on the claim that on matters related to foreign policy, the Carter presidency was something less than a bust. Vaïsse devotes the core of his book to arguing just that. Although valiant, the effort falls well short of success. ..."
"... From the outset of his administration, Carter accorded his national-security adviser remarkable deference. Brzezinski was not co-equal with the president; yet neither was he a mere subordinate. He was, Vaïsse writes, "the architect of Carter's foreign policy," while also exercising "an exceptional degree of control" over its articulation and implementation. ..."
"... The disintegration of the Soviet bloc and eventually of the Soviet Union itself was, in his view, a nominal goal of American foreign policy, but not an immediate prospect. ..."
"... The Camp David accords did nothing to resolve the Palestinian issue that underlay much of Israeli-Arab enmity; it produced a dead-end peace that left Palestinians without a state and Israel with no end of problems. And the Brzezinski-engineered embrace of China, enhancing Chinese access to American technology and markets, accelerated that country's emergence as a peer competitor. ..."
Underlying that purpose are at least two implicit assumptions. The first is that, when it comes to statecraft, grand strategy
actually exists, not simply as an aspiration but as a discrete and identifiable element. The second is that, in his writings and
contributions to US policy, Kissinger himself qualifies as a strategic virtuoso. For all sorts of reasons, we should treat both of
these assumptions with considerable skepticism.
That Brzezinski, who died last year at age 89, lived a life that deserves to be recounted and appraised is certainly the case.
Born in Warsaw in 1928 to parents with ties to Polish nobility, Brzezinski had a peripatetic childhood. His father was a diplomat
whose family accompanied him on postings to France, Germany, and eventually to Canada. The Nazi invasion of 1939, which extinguished
Polish independence, also effectively ended his father's diplomatic career. With war engulfing nearly all of Europe, Brzezinski would
not set foot on Polish soil again for nearly two decades.
Although the young Brzezinski quickly adapted to life in Canada, the well-being of Poles and Poland remained an abiding preoccupation.
After the war, he studied economics and political science at McGill University, focusing in particular on the Soviet Union, which
by then had replaced Germany as the power that dominated the country of his birth. Brzezinski was a brilliant student with a particular
interest in international affairs, a field increasingly centered on questions related to America's role in presiding over the postwar
global order.
After graduating from McGill, Brzezinski set his sights on Harvard, which at the time was the very archetype of a "Cold War university."
Senior faculty and young scholars on the make were volunteering to advise the national-security apparatus just then forming in Washington.
For many of them, the Soviet threat appeared to eclipse all other questions and fields of inquiry. In this setting, Brzezinski flourished.
Even before becoming an American citizen, he was thoroughly Americanized, imbued with the mind-set that prevailed in circles where
members of the power elite mixed and mingled. Partially funded by the CIA, the Russian Research Center, Brzezinski's home at Harvard,
was one of those places.
From his time in Cambridge, he emerged committed, in his own words, to "nothing less than formulating a coherent strategy for
the United States, so that we could eventually dismantle the Soviet bloc" and, not so incidentally, thereby liberate Poland. To this
cause, the young Brzezinski devoted himself with single-minded energy.
A s a scholar and author of works intended for a general audience, Zbig, as he was widely known, was nothing if not prolific.
Churning out a steady stream of well-regarded books and essays, he demonstrated a particular knack for "summarizing things in a concise
and striking way."
Clarity took precedence over nuance.
And with his gift for stylish packaging -- crafting neologisms ("technetronic")
and high-sounding phrases ("Histrionics as History in Transition") -- his analyses had the appearance of novelty, even if they often
lacked real substance.
Whether writing for his fellow scholars or addressing a wider audience, Brzezinski had one big idea when it
came to Cold War strategy: He promoted the concept of "peaceful engagement" as a basis for US policy.
Convinced that the Soviet Union
and the Soviet bloc were internally fragile, he believed that economic and cultural interaction with the West would ultimately lead
to their collapse. The idea was to project strength without provoking confrontation, while patiently exerting indirect influence.
Yet little of the Brzezinski oeuvre has stood the test of time. The American canon of essential readings in international relations
and strategy, beginning with George Washington's farewell address and continuing on through works by John Quincy Adams, Alfred Thayer
Mahan, Hans Morgenthau, and a handful of others (the list is not especially long), does not include anything penned by Brzezinski.
Although Vaïsse, a senior official with the French foreign ministry, appears to have read and pondered just about every word his
subject wrote or uttered, he identifies nothing of Brzezinski's that qualifies as must-reading for today's aspiring strategist.
This limited academic influence probably did not bother Zbig; he never saw himself as a mere scholar. He was a classic in-and-outer,
rotating effortlessly from university campuses to political campaigns, and from government service to plummy think-tank billets.
According to Vaïsse, Brzezinski never courted the media. Even so, he demonstrated a pronounced talent for getting himself in front
of TV cameras, becoming a frequent guest on programs like Meet the Press . He knew how to self-promote.
Toward the end of his life, Brzezinski even had a Twitter account. His last tweet, from May 2017, both summarizes the essence
of his worldview and expresses his dismay regarding the presidency of Donald Trump: "Sophisticated US leadership is the sine qua
non of a stable world order. However, we lack the former while the latter is getting worse."
F rom the time Brzezinski left Harvard in 1960 to accept a tenured position at Columbia, he made it his mission to nurture and
facilitate that sophistication. For Zbig, New York offered a specific advantage over Cambridge: It provided a portal into elite political
circles. As it had for Kissinger, the then-still-influential Council on Foreign Relations provided a venue that enabled Brzezinski
to curry favor with the rich and powerful, and to establish his bona fides as a statesman to watch. Henry's patron was Nelson Rockefeller;
Zbig's was Nelson's brother David.
Although not an ideologue, Brzezinski was a liberal Democrat of a consistently hawkish persuasion. Committed to social justice
at home, he was also committed to toughness abroad. In the 1960s, he supported US intervention in Vietnam, treated the domino theory
as self-evidently true, and argued that, with American credibility on the line, the United States had no alternative but to continue
prosecuting the war. Even after the war ended, Vaïsse writes, Brzezinski "did not view Vietnam as a mistake."
Yet Vietnam did nudge Brzezinski to reconsider some of his own assumptions. In the early 1970s, with an eye toward forging a new
foreign policy that might take into account some of the trauma caused by Vietnam, he organized the Trilateral Commission. Apart from
expending copious amounts of Rockefeller money, the organization produced little of substance. For Brzezinski, however, it proved
a smashing success. It was there that he became acquainted with Jimmy Carter, a Georgia governor then contemplating a run for the
presidency in 1976.
Zbig and Jimmy hit it off. Soon enough, Brzezinski signed on as the candidate's principal foreign-policy adviser. When Carter
won, he rewarded Brzezinski by appointing him national-security adviser, the job that had vaulted Kissinger to the upper ranks of
global celebrity.
Zbig held this post throughout Carter's one-term presidency, from 1977 to 1981. It would be his first and last time in government.
After 1981, Brzezinski went back to writing, continued to opine, and was occasionally consulted by Carter's successors, both Democratic
and Republican. Yet despite having ascended to the rank of elder statesman, never again did Brzezinski occupy a position where he
could directly affect US policy.
Because of Brzezinski's limited influence on foreign policy after Carter, Vaïsse's case for installing him in the pantheon of
master strategists therefore rests on the claim that on matters related to foreign policy, the Carter presidency was something less
than a bust. Vaïsse devotes the core of his book to arguing just that. Although valiant, the effort falls well short of success.
From the outset of his administration, Carter accorded his national-security adviser remarkable deference. Brzezinski was not
co-equal with the president; yet neither was he a mere subordinate. He was, Vaïsse writes, "the architect of Carter's foreign policy,"
while also exercising "an exceptional degree of control" over its articulation and implementation.
In a characteristic display of self-assurance and bureaucratic shrewdness, as the new president took office, Brzezinski gave him
a 43-page briefing book prescribing basic administration policy. Under the overarching theme of "constructive global engagement,"
Brzezinski identified 10 specific goals. The first proposed to "create more active and solid cooperation with Europe and Japan,"
the 10th to "maintain a defense posture designed to dissuade the Soviet Union from committing hostile acts." In between were less-than-modest
aspirations to promote human rights, reduce the size of nuclear arsenals, curb international arms sales, end apartheid in South Africa,
normalize Sino-American relations, terminate US control of the Panama Canal, and achieve an "overall solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
problem."
While Brzezinski's agenda was as bold as it was comprehensive, it nonetheless hewed to the Soviet-centric assumptions that had
formed the basis of US policy since the end of World War II. Zbig recognized that the world had changed considerably in the ensuing
years, but he also believed that any future changes would still occur in the context of a continuing Soviet-American rivalry. His
strategic perspective, therefore, did not include the possibility that the international order might center on something other than
the binaries imposed by the Cold War. The disintegration of the Soviet bloc and eventually of the Soviet Union itself was, in his
view, a nominal goal of American foreign policy, but not an immediate prospect.
Using Brzezinski's 10 policy objectives as a basis for evaluating his performance, Vaïsse gives the national-security adviser
high marks. "Few administrations have known so many tangible successes in only four years," he writes, citing the Panama Canal Treaty,
the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement, and improved relations with China. Yet while Panama remains an underappreciated achievement,
the other two qualify as ambiguous at best. The Camp David accords did nothing to resolve the Palestinian issue that underlay much
of Israeli-Arab enmity; it produced a dead-end peace that left Palestinians without a state and Israel with no end of problems. And
the Brzezinski-engineered embrace of China, enhancing Chinese access to American technology and markets, accelerated that country's
emergence as a peer competitor.
More troubling still was Brzezinski's failure to anticipate or to grasp the implications of the two developments that all but
doomed the Carter presidency: the 1978 Iranian Revolution and the 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Vaïsse does his best to
cast a positive light on Brzezinski's role in these twin embarrassments. But there's no way around it: Brzezinski misread both --
with consequences that still haunt us today.
The Iranian Revolution, which Brzezinski sought to forestall by instigating a military coup in Tehran, offered a warning against
imagining that Washington could shape events in the Islamic world. Brzezinski missed that warning entirely, although he would by
no means be the last US official to do so. As for the Kremlin's plunge into Afghanistan, widely interpreted as evidence of the Soviet
Union's naked aggression, it actually testified to the weakness and fragility of the Soviet empire, already in an advanced state
of decay. Again, Brzezinski -- along with many other observers -- misread the issue. When clarity of vision was most needed, he failed
to provide it.
Together, these two developments ought to have induced a wily strategist to reassess the premises of US policy. Instead, they
resulted in decisions to deepen -- and to overtly militarize -- US involvement in and around the Persian Gulf. While this commitment
is commonly referred to as the Carter Doctrine, Vaïsse insists that it "was really a Brzezinski doctrine."
Regardless of who gets the credit, the militarization of US policy across what Brzezinski termed an "arc of crisis" encompassing
much of the Islamic world laid the basis for a series of wars and upheavals that continue to this day. If, as national-security adviser,
Brzezinski wielded as much influence as Vaïsse contends, then this too forms part of his legacy. When it mattered most, the master
strategist failed to understand the implications of the crisis that occurred on his watch.
The most glaring problem anyone faces in trying to assert Brzezinski's mastery of world affairs, however, rests not in Iran or
Afghanistan, but in how the Cold War came to an end. Indeed, Brzezinski viewed it as essentially endless. As late as 1987, just two
years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, he was still insisting that "the American-Soviet conflict is an historical rivalry that
will endure for as long as we live."
B rzezinski was certainly smart, flexible, and pragmatic, but he was also a prisoner of the Cold War paradigm. So too were virtually
all other members of the foreign-policy establishment of his day. Indeed, subscribing to that paradigm was a prerequisite of membership.
Yet this adherence amounted to donning a pair of strategic blinders: It meant seeing only those things that it was convenient to
see.
Which brings us back to Zbig's last tweet, with its paean to American leadership as the sine qua non of global stability. The
tweet neatly captures the mind-set that the foreign-policy establishment has embraced with something like unanimity since the Cold
War surprised that establishment by coming to an end. This mind-set gets expressed in myriad ways in a thousand speeches and op-eds:
The United States must lead. There is no alternative; history itself summons the country to do so. Should it fail in that responsibility,
darkness will cover the earth.
This is why Trump so infuriates the foreign-policy elite: He appears oblivious to the providential call that others in Washington
take to be self-evident. Yet adhering to this post–Cold War paradigm is also the equivalent of donning blinders. Whatever the issue
-- especially when the issue is ourselves -- it means seeing only those things that we find it convenient to see.
The post–Cold War paradigm of American moral and political hegemony prevents us from appreciating the way that the world is actually
changing -- rapidly, radically, and right before our very eyes. Today, with the planet continuing to heat up, the nexus of global
geopolitics shifting eastward, and Americans pondering security threats for which our pricey and far-flung military establishment
is all but useless, the art of strategy as practiced by members of Brzezinski's generation has become irrelevant. So too has Zbig
himself.
"... this is a clear sign that Canada no longer exists as an independent nation, but is a colony of the USA/Israeli empire. ..."
"... This story is not about an ultra-wealthy Chinese heiress enduring an odd adventure in Canada. This story is about a complete loss of Canadian sovereignty, because detaining this lady is outright insane. Canada was conquered without firing a shot! Welcome back to the royal empire run as a dictatorship. ..."
"... If only America focused its attention inward, on growth and stability, instead of transcendent American Imperialism then the world may stand a chance. ..."
"... Western positions on climate, neoliberalism, migration, in my opinion point into the same direction: critical thinking, almost gone. ..."
"... Defrauding the nation into "war of aggression" is the supreme crime one can commit against the American People. The "SUPREME CRIME"! ..."
"... Every "penny" belonging to each and every Neocon Oligarch who CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD US INTO ILLEGAL WAR should be forfeit until the debt from those wars is paid down .. IN FULL ! ..."
"... Canada may be the obvious criminal. But on consideration, isn't it rather like the low-level thug who carries out a criminal assignment on the orders of a gang boss? And isn't it the gang boss who is the real problem for society? ..."
"... and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face. ..."
As most readers know, I'm not a casual political blogger and I prefer producing lengthy research articles rather than chasing
the headlines of current events. But there are exceptions to every rule, and the looming danger of a direct worldwide clash with
China is one of them.
Consider the arrest last week of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, the world's largest telecom equipment manufacturer. While flying
from Hong Kong to Mexico, Ms. Meng was changing planes in the Vancouver International Airport airport when she was suddenly detained
by the Canadian government on an August US warrant. Although now released on $10 million bail, she still faces extradition to a New
York City courtroom, where she could receive up to thirty years in federal prison for allegedly having conspired in 2010 to violate
America's unilateral economic trade sanctions against Iran.
Although our mainstream media outlets have certainly covered this important story, including front page articles in the New
York Times and the Wall Street Journal , I doubt most American readers fully recognize the extraordinary gravity of
this international incident and its potential for altering the course of world history. As one scholar noted, no event since America's
deliberate 1999 bombing of China's
embassy in Belgrade , which killed several Chinese diplomats, has so outraged both the Chinese government and its population.
Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs correctly
described it as "almost a US declaration of war on China's business community."
Such a reaction is hardly surprising. With annual revenue of $100 billion, Huawei ranks as the world's largest and most advanced
telecommunications equipment manufacturer as well as China's most internationally successful and prestigious company. Ms. Meng is
not only a longtime top executive there, but also the daughter of the company's founder, Ren Zhengfei, whose enormous entrepreneurial
success has established him as a Chinese national hero.
Her seizure on obscure American sanction violation charges while changing planes in a Canadian airport almost amounts to a kidnapping.
One journalist asked how Americans would react if China had seized Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook for violating Chinese law especially
if Sandberg were also the daughter of Steve Jobs.
Indeed, the closest analogy that comes to my mind is when Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia kidnapped the Prime Minister
of Lebanon earlier this year and held him hostage. Later he more successfully did the same with hundreds of his wealthiest Saudi
subjects, extorting something like $100 billion in ransom from their families before finally releasing them. Then he may have finally
over-reached himself when Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident, was killed and dismembered by a
bone-saw at the Saudi embassy in Turkey.
We should actually be a bit grateful to Prince Mohammed since without him America would clearly have the most insane government
anywhere in the world. As it stands, we're merely tied for first.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme World
Hegemon. As a result, local American courts have begun enforcing gigantic financial penalties against foreign countries and their
leading corporations, and I suspect that the rest of the world is tiring of this misbehavior. Perhaps such actions can still be taken
against the subservient vassal states of Europe, but by most objective measures, the size of China's real economy surpassed that
of the US several years ago and is now substantially
larger , while also still having a far higher rate of growth. Our totally dishonest mainstream media regularly obscures this
reality, but it remains true nonetheless.
Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and imprisoning one of its leading technology executives
reminds me of
a comment
I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current political elites:
Or to apply a far harsher biological metaphor, consider a poor canine infected with the rabies virus. The virus may have no
brain and its body-weight is probably less than one-millionth that of the host, but once it has seized control of the central
nervous system, the animal, big brain and all, becomes a helpless puppet.
Once friendly Fido runs around foaming at the mouth, barking at the sky, and trying to bite all the other animals it can reach.
Its friends and relatives are saddened by its plight but stay well clear, hoping to avoid infection before the inevitable happens,
and poor Fido finally collapses dead in a heap.
Normal countries like China naturally assume that other countries like the US will also behave in normal ways, and their dumbfounded
shock at Ms. Meng's seizure has surely delayed their effective response. In 1959, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Moscow and
famously engaged in a heated
"kitchen debate"
with Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the relative merits of Communism and Capitalism. What would have been the American reaction
if Nixon had been immediately arrested and given a ten year Gulag sentence for "anti-Soviet agitation"?
Since a natural reaction to international hostage-taking is retaliatory international hostage-taking, the newspapers have reported
that top American executives have decided to forego visits to China until the crisis is resolved. These days, General Motors sells
more cars in China than in the US, and China is also the manufacturing source of nearly all our iPhones, but Tim Cook, Mary Barra,
and their higher-ranking subordinates are unlikely to visit that country in the immediate future, nor would the top executives of
Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, and the leading Hollywood studios be willing to risk indefinite imprisonment.
Canada had arrested Ms. Meng on American orders, and this morning's newspapers reported that
a former Canadian diplomat
had suddenly been detained in China , presumably as a small bargaining-chip to encourage Ms. Meng's release. But I very much
doubt such measures will have much effect. Once we forgo traditional international practices and adopt the Law of the Jungle, it
becomes very important to recognize the true lines of power and control, and Canada is merely acting as an American political puppet
in this matter. Would threatening the puppet rather than the puppet-master be likely to have much effect?
Similarly, nearly all of America's leading technology executives are already quite hostile to the Trump Administration, and even
if it were possible, seizing one of them would hardly be likely to sway our political leadership. To a lesser extent, the same thing
is true about the overwhelming majority of America's top corporate leaders. They are not the individuals who call the shots in the
current White House.
Indeed, is President Trump himself anything more than a higher-level puppet in this very dangerous affair? World peace and American
national security interests are being sacrificed in order to harshly enforce the Israel Lobby's international sanctions campaign
against Iran, and we should hardly be surprised that the National Security Adviser John Bolton, one of America's most extreme pro-Israel
zealots,
had personally given the green light to the arrest. Meanwhile, there are credible reports that Trump himself remained entirely
unaware of these plans, and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President
Xi. Some have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.
But Bolton's apparent involvement underscores the central role of his longtime patron, multi-billionaire casino-magnate Sheldon
Adelson, whose enormous financial influence within Republican political circles has been overwhelmingly focused on pro-Israel policy
and hostility towards Iran, Israel's regional rival.
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely
must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not
be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters who do exist
are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call
to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.
Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the
15th wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on his ownership of extremely lucrative gambling casinos in
Macau, China . In effect, the Chinese government currently has its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible
for Ms. Meng's arrest and whose pro-Israel minions largely control American foreign policy. I very much doubt that they are fully
aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage.
Over the years, Adelson's Chinese Macau casinos have been involved
in all sorts of political bribery scandals
, and I suspect it would be very easy for the Chinese government to find reasonable grounds for immediately shutting them down, at
least on a temporary basis, with such an action having almost no negative repercussions to Chinese society or the bulk of the Chinese
population. How could the international community possibly complain about the Chinese government shutting down some of their own
local gambling casinos with a long public record of official bribery and other criminal activity? At worst, other gambling casino
magnates would become reluctant to invest future sums in establishing additional Chinese casinos, hardly a desperate threat to President
Xi's anti-corruption government.
I don't have a background in finance and I haven't bothered trying to guess the precise impact of a temporary shutdown of Adelson's
Chinese casinos, but it wouldn't surprise me if the resulting drop in the stock price of
Las Vegas Sands Corp would reduce Adelson's personal
net worth were by $5-10 billion within 24 hours, surely enough to get his immediate personal attention. Meanwhile, threats of a permanent
shutdown, perhaps extending to Chinese-influenced Singapore, might lead to the near-total destruction of Adelson's personal fortune,
and similar measures could also be applied as well to the casinos of all the other fanatically pro-Israel American billionaires,
who dominate the remainder of gambling in Chinese Macau.
The chain of political puppets responsible for Ms. Meng's sudden detention is certainly a complex and murky one. But the Chinese
government already possesses the absolute power of financial life-or-death over Sheldon Adelson, the man located at the very top
of that chain. If the Chinese leadership recognizes that power and takes effective steps, Ms. Meng will immediately be put on a plane
back home, carrying the deepest sort of international political apology. And future attacks against Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese
technology companies would not be repeated.
China actually holds a Royal Flush in this international political poker game. The only question is whether they will recognize
the value of their hand. I hope they do for the sake of America and the entire world.
This is no surprise. Anyone who follows political events knows that John Bolton is insane, so no surprise that he devised this
insane idea. The problem will be corrected within a week, and hopefully Bolton sent to an asylum.
However, this is a clear sign that Canada no longer exists as an independent nation, but is a colony of the USA/Israeli empire.
Canada provides soldiers for this empire in Afghanistan even today, and in Latvia. Most Canadians can't find that nation on a
map, but it's a tiny unimportant nation in the Baltic that NATO adsorbed as part of its plan for a new Cold War.
This story is not about an ultra-wealthy Chinese heiress enduring an odd adventure in Canada. This story is about a complete
loss of Canadian sovereignty, because detaining this lady is outright insane. Canada was conquered without firing a shot! Welcome
back to the royal empire run as a dictatorship.
I hope someone in China is reading this article. I would love to see Adelson and his cohorts go down in flames. This would fit
right in with China's current anti-corruption foray. Xi has a reputation for hanging corrupt officials. Shutting down Adelson's
casinos would be consistent with what Xi has been doing and increase his popularity, not least of all, right here in the US.
If only America focused its attention inward, on growth and stability, instead of transcendent American Imperialism then the world
may stand a chance. The future will suffer once China's debt traps collapse and like America it begins placing military globally.
America would be the one country who could work towards a Western future but this will never be the case. Better start learning
Mandarin lest we end up like the Uyghurs.
@Anonymous Use your
brain. The Chinese elite want to use the political clout that Adelson and the other big casino Jews have with the US government.
To gain lobby power from a proven expert, Shelly Adelson, they are willing to allow him to make the big bucks in Macao. They expect
quid pro quo.
The Chinese are pussies and will always back down. The U.S. laughed in their face after they bombed and killed them in Belgrade
and got crickets from the Chinamen. China can't project much power beyond its borders. They can't punch back. The Chinese (and
East Asians) are only part of the global business racket because they are efficient worker bees facilitating the global financial
system. They have no real control over the global market. And if they start to think they do they'll get a quick lesson. Like
they're getting with Meng, who is being treated like coolie prostitute. LMAO.
I always enjoy fresh writing from Mr. Unz. Clarity of thought is a fine thing to witness in language. It should be stated, America
is not in any danger.the empire is and is in terminal decline. As Asia's economic might grows in leaps ad bound, so does the empire
scramble to thwart losing its global grip.
As Fred Reed once pointed out, declining empires rarely go quietly. Will America's leadership gamble on a new war to prevent asia's
ascendancy?
I think it's possible.
But what do I know. As my father once said, "I'm just a pawn in a game."
To his credit he had the wherewithal to see that. Alas, most Americans are asleep.
The call for Ms. Meng's arrest had to come from the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. They enforce every thing related
to sanctions, which they claim is what Meng was arrested for– sale of phones and software to Iran.
But they also say they had been on her company's case since 2013 so their timing is rather suspect.
What else I don't understand is her company has research and offices in Germany, Sweden, the U.S., France, Italy, Russia, India,
China and Canada ..So if what they sold or attempted to sell to Iran wasn't outright 'stolen' intellectual property from the US
or even if it was why not transfer it to and or have it made in China or some country not signed onto the Iran sanctions and then
sell it to Iran. I haven't boned up on exactly what kinds of phone software they were selling but I think it has something to
do with being able to bypass NSA and others intercepts.
You are assuming Meng is not a sacrificial pawn in some larger game.
It would be priceless for Xi to shut down Adelson's operations in Macau for a few days or weeks, but I'm afraid Xi is very
much akin to Capitain Louis Renault in Casablanca , and after walking into a Macau casino and uttering the phrase, "I am
shocked- shocked- to find that gambling is going on in here!" might admit in the next breath, "I blow with the wind, and the prevailing
wind happens to be from Jerusalem."
Half a century or so propaganda like 'the USA policing the world' of course had effect.
Not realised is that in normal circumstances police is not an autonomous force, but has to act within a legal framework.
The illusion of this framework of course exists, human rights, democracy, whatever
She's out on bail. Agree that Bolton blindsided Trump. Trump is going to try to turn this into some sort of PR gesture when he
pardons her. No way he will let this mess up his trade deal. Which is beached until she exonerated.
What is true
of these stories of course cannot be known with certainty, but it is asserted that USA military technology is way behind China
and Russia.
Several examples exist, but of course, if these examples tell the truth, not sure.
PISA comparisons of levels of education world wide show how the west is intellectually behind the east.
Western positions on climate, neoliberalism, migration, in my opinion point into the same direction: critical thinking, almost
gone.
"I very much doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage".
I very much doubt whether that is the case. As far as I know, most Chinese people are distinguished by their intelligence,
thoroughness and diligence. What do the thousands of people employed by China's foreign ministry and its intelligence services
do all day, if they are unaware of such important facts?
However I also doubt if China's leaders are inclined to see matters in nearly such a black and white way as many Westerners.
Jewish people seem to get along very well in China and with the Chinese, which could be because both have high levels of intelligence,
culture, and subtlety. As well as being interested in money and enterprise.
It's certainly an interesting situation, and I too am waiting expectantly for the other shoe to drop.
Yes, whatever your bias is, China is a "normal" country. In the sense of being closer to the ideal than most countries – not of
being average.
You may bewail some of the "human rights" issues in China, although I believe they may be somewhat magnified for PR purposes.
But when did China last attack another country without provocation and murder hundreds of thousands of its citizens, level its
cities, or destroy the rule of law? (Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya )
The Chinese seem to be law-abiding, sensible, and strongly disposed to peace. Which is something the world needs a lot more
of right now.
@Dan Hayes "why hasn't
anyone before thought of it.. "
" WHY HASN'T ANYONE BEFORE THOUGHT OF IT !!"
You must be kidding me.
For over three years I have been issuing comment after comment after comment .Like a crazed wolf howling in a barren forest
.That the "number one" priority of the American people should be demanding the seizure of ALL the assets of Neocon oligarchic
class.
Why ?
Not because they are "oligarchs." ..or some might own "casinos" but because they "deliberately" Conspired to Defraud the American
People into illegal Wars of Aggression and have nearly bankrupted the nation in the process.
That's why.
And it is the worlds BEST REASON to seize the assets a thousand times better than "bribery charges." I have issued statement after statement to that affect ,on Unz Review, in the hope that at some point it might, at least subliminally,
catch on.
What I have witnessed over the past six years, is a lot of intelligent, thoughtful people "correctly diagnosing" the issues
which plague the nation But no one had any idea of what to do about it. I have been pointing out, that if people really want to do something about it then do whats RIGHT: Seize the assets of the defrauders.!
Of course we can. Of course we can Its the LAW! Defrauding the nation into "war of aggression" is the supreme crime one can commit against the American People. The "SUPREME CRIME"!
(If you don't think so, go ask your local Police Officer. He will tell you FLAT OUT ..it is the Worst crime "Conspiracy to Defraud
into Mass Murder! .Not good ! You can even ask him if there is a statute of limitations. He will probably say something like "
Yeah .When the Sun collapses!")
And they are GUILTY as charged There is no doubt , .. not anymore. We all know it and can "prove" it ! Every "penny" belonging to each and every Neocon Oligarch who CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD US INTO ILLEGAL WAR should be forfeit until
the debt from those wars is paid down .. IN FULL !
The keys to the kingdom are right there, right in front of your noses. If you want to change things ."take action" the law is on YOUR side. We don't need China to do a damn thing ..We just need the American People to rise up,"apply the law" and take back their country
and its solvency.
Canada may be
the obvious criminal. But on consideration, isn't it rather like the low-level thug who carries out a criminal assignment on the
orders of a gang boss? And isn't it the gang boss who is the real problem for society?
An article with the identical take as Ron Unz, including the idea that China has its key lever via Sheldon Adelson's casinos,
was published on the Canadian
website of Henry Makow also noting that USA political king-maker Adelson, is a major force behind the anti-Iran obsessions
that partly grounded the arrest of Ms Meng, and so well-deserves consequences here...
In the Jeffrey Sachs article linked above, Sachs lists no less than 25 other companies which have been 'violating US sanctions'
and admitted guilt via paying of fines, but never suffered any executive arrests, including banks including JP Morgan Chase, Bank
of America, PayPal, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Wells Fargo.
The principle against 'selective, arbitrary, and political prosecutions'
The principle that one state cannot take measures on the territory of another state by means of enforcement of national laws
- 'proportionality of law', which demands that penalty for any said 'crime' needs to be proportionate to the offence, and not
draconian, 'cruel and unusual' Ms Meng is threatened with decades in prison
This is also a significant humiliation of President Trump personally, his own advisors apparently colluding to render him powerless
and uninformed
The Meng case brings to mind the story of another sanctions-violating 'target' arrested at USA request, the great USA chess
master and non-Zionist Jew, Bobby Fischer (1943-2008).
Born in Chicago, Illinois, USA, Fischer impressed the world with his genius, but, like Ms Meng became criminally indicted by
the USA regime, for the 'crime' of playing chess in Yugoslavia when the Serb government was under USA 'sanctions'. Harassed across
the globe, Fischer was jailed in Japan in 2004-05 by embarrassed Japanese leaders, for this fake 'crime' which few people in the
world thought was wrong. Fischer had been using his celebrity voice to strongly criticise the USA & Israeli governments, making
him also a political target, much as Ms Meng is a political target due to her being a prominent citizen and quasi-princess of
China.
The Japanese, loath to be the instrument of Fischer's USA imprisonment, finally allowed Bobby to transit to Iceland where he
was given asylum and residency. Living not far from Iceland's NATO military base, Fischer became quickly and mysteriously struck
with disease, and Fischer died in Reykjavik, perhaps a victim of a CIA-Mossad-Nato assassination squad.
The Chinese government, I am told, directly understands the power and role of Sheldon Adelson here, and Chinese inspectors
are perhaps inside Adelson's Macau properties as you read this. Perhaps Chinese officials may show up soon in Adelson's casinos,
and repeat the line of actor Claude Rains' character in the 1942 film 'Casablanca' -
"I'm shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here!"
What we have to realize is that just as there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans because they are both
owned by the same people, so must we realize that in reality there is little difference between the leaders of the worlds countries
because they are all owned by the same central banks. This is why Nate Rothschild famously stated "give me control of a countries
money supply, and I care not who makes its laws" . All the world's central banks are tied together by BIS, WB and IMF and
the US marines. This is the reason Syria, Libya, NK and Venezuela have been taken down: Rothchild central bank control.
So this Huaiwei arrest almost certainly has nothing to do with the "trade war", and is with certainly a hit by one side of
the Kabal against the other. Zionist Nationalists versus Chabad Lubbovitz perhaps?
Jared Kushner has been lying pretty low lately and recently was stripped of his security clearance. He was linked to Kissilev
the Russian ambassador, plus he was pushing Trump to help protect MBS in SA. I would bet that he is at the center of this storm.
I'm honestly shocked no one has stated the obvious: very, very few Americans would be likely to care if Sheryl Sandberg were arrested
on dubious charges in China. I cant say I would be one of those few people.
I also should note that the crown prince of KSA is Mohammad bin Salman. Salman is his father, the king. The crown prince is
Mohammad, son of (aka "bin") Salman.
@TheMediumIsTheMassage
In many ways China does deviate from international norms, but of course so does the United States. As Tom Welsh pointed out, Chinese
foreign policy is downright angelic compared to the US, even if you consider Tibet and Xinjiang to be illegitimately occupied
territories (an argument I'm sympathetic to). Perhaps China would act as belligerently as the US does if China were the sole global
superpower, but it's not, so it's fair to judge China favorably compared to the US.
@Craig Nelsen Trump
deserves it for hiring Bolton at all. Perhaps one might argue Trump was blackmailed into doing so but he doesn't seem to be acting
like a blackmailed man.
Mr. Unz, at no time since Ms. Wanzhou's arrest have I felt myself in a position to judge that this was a strategically unwise
or incautious act. It might be, but apparently I'm to be contrasted from so many of your readers, and you, simply for understanding
myself to have an inadequate handle on the facts to make the call. That would be true, that my handle on the facts would be inadequate,
even if I didn't have personal knowledge of Huawei's suspicious practices or their scale.
I worry that you don't seem to evidence the presence of someone trusted who will go toe to toe with you as Devil's Advocate.
Too often, on affairs of too great a consequence, you come across too strongly, when the data doesn't justify the confidence.
A confident error is still an error and Maimonides' advice on indecision notwithstanding, a confident error is a candidate for
hubris, the worst kind of error. All of this, of course, assumes you make these arguments in good faith because if not the calculus
changes mightily.
Too many of your readers evidence that they interpret this event and form an opinion of it based on nothing but this higher order
syllogism:
Because I distrust the US government
[or because I distrust those I believe to control the US government]
It follows that this was an unjustified act or else a dangerous strategic error
After this higher order syllogism is accepted without due critique, evidence is sought to justify it and no further consideration
of the possibilities is tallied.
At minimum you need to have run a permutation where you seriously consider that : it is well know to US operatives, if not
to US citizens, you, and your readers, that Huawei is actively, constantly and maliciously waging covert war on the USA. You should
at least consider this possibility. If true, this act may merely be a shot across the bow that notifies China of a readiness to
expose things China may not wished exposed, and might stop endangering US citizens, if it were made aware such things stand to
be exposed.
If that's true, not only are you a fishing trawler captain causing distraction with a loudspeaker yelling at the captain of
the destroyer that just fired the warning shot across the bow of a Chinese vessel that is likely covert PLA/N, but now you may
be positioning your trawler to block the destroyer.
Do you really have enough information to know this is wise? Do you really know as much as the destroyer captain?
I will be away today, in the off chance you reply and I don't immediately answer it is because I can't.
Superb, as always, Ron Unz!
For someone who says he has no background in economics you you put your finger dead center on the money nexus of this "puppet
run by another puppet controlled by another puppet dangling from the strings of a still bigger puppet" chain from hell.
I wish someone would read out the entire article, may be with photos of the culprits, on Youtube with subtitles in Chinese.
@Craig Nelsen Nobody
is suggesting that "the order" came from Bolton or that he could indeed give any such order. True his not telling Trump about
what was about to happen bears a sinister interpretation.
@TheMediumIsTheMassage
I think what he means by normal are countries whose leaders are interested in the well being of their nation and the people they
rule. No divided or corrupted loyalties to another nation.
By this standard the United States is clearly not a normal country.
One angle you did not mention, Cisco (U.S. company) of course until not too many years ago had a near-monopoly on the kind
of network systems Huawei is selling as number one now (actually, I did not know of Huawei's success there, thought of it as a
handset maker), that may be a factor here.
There are a few Chinese or U.S. people of that descent on this site, mainly PRC-sympathetic, it would be very amusing if they
were able to ignite a big discussion of your hypothetical reprisals
During the bombing of Belgrade a missile fell on the Chinese Embassy. A local tv reporter approached a Chinese Embassy official
and asked him. What are you going to do now? The answer was.
The Meng case brings to mind the story of another sanctions-violating 'target' arrested at USA request, the great USA chess
master and non-Zionist Jew, Bobby Fischer (1943-2008).
Fischer was another victim of Zionist controlled American imperialism. Yugoslavia, the child of Woodrow Wilson, became the
victim of the Imperialist war Against Russia. Russia's brother, and ally, Yugoslavia, was destroyed by the kind democrat gang
administration of Wm (that was not sex), Clinton.
Excellent article, and an ingenious suggestion regarding the Adelson casinos. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a casino
shutdown. Having worked in the marketing end of the casino industry myself, I can tell you the most coveted demographic lists
were always the Chinese players, words like fanatical and obsessive don't even come close to describing their penchant for gambling.
I could literally see casino shutdowns in China causing a national Gilet Jaune moment followed by the overthrow of the Communist
Party LOL.
I would definitely welcome seeing more Ron Unz articles on current topics.
@Carlton Meyer Any chance
this is Democrat, Deep State types at State and Justice manufacturing this cluster-f in order to make Trump look unaware? This
is a President that respects casinos. And business. If Bolton and Company pulled this from behind the scenes without Executive
knowledge or authorization, is that even legal? More treason? But given the circumstances, how does all this even GET to Iran,
hurt Iran at all? What was supposedly illegal was done in 2010. Are we certain bags of cash from the Chinese and Russians and
Iran weren't traveling about Democrat-ruled DC back then? Grabbing this chick helps the case against Iran? I'm at a loss as to
how.
And so the thought of a more local political benefit/purpose, stirring a diplomatic shit-storm on Trump's watch, something
he'd have to take responsibility for. To start a near war, sort of like the Bay of Pigs. Operatives, pulling tricks, writing checks
the President then has to cover, looking like an unelectable mook throughout.
I'm happy to give the AIPAC kiddies full credit, I just don't see the damage to Iran in all this. For crying out loud, we carted
$500 billion cash over to Iran under Obama's watch, what, 2013 or 2014ish? I don't know how we skip over THAT, to get to trade
shenanigans in 2010, also taking place under Obama's watch. What was Holder doing when he was AG after all, why no action then?
If it's Israeli-driven today, why wasn't Israel pushing Holder to take action against Huawei back in 2010?
@TheMediumIsTheMassage
How is the USA a "normal" country in any sense of the word? It once was truly great among the nations of the world but that ship
sailed looooong back.
We invade for fake "freedom", inject the poison of homo mania into nations that do not do the bidding of the homos and/or bend
to the will of the chosen ones, pretend it's all for some good cause then invite the survivors to displace the founding stock
of this country. You call that "normal"??
We are nothing more than a vehicle for every kind of degenerate (((loser))) with cash to use our men and women as their private
mercenaries. We spread filth around the place, destroy nations and proclaim ourselves as the peace-makers with the shrill voice
of a worn out street prostitute on kensingtion ave (philly).
We are like that hoe, living out the last days of her aids infested body, with a grudge on the world for something that was
completely of our (((own))) making. Philly might have been the birthplace of this country but camden is where we are all headed.
And looking at China, we are dysfunctional beyond repair. Of course we still have quite a few things the Chinese might want to
emulate (no the SJW versions but the read deal) but looking at our other maladies, they probably won't who'll blame them?
@Anon Yes it was s Portuguese
colony. Interesting that Persian traders including Jews were in Macau going back st least to 500 AD probably more.
Ron, have you sent this article to the Chinese ambassador in DC yet?
Strange that the Chinese let Adelson in. The Macau casinos have thrived for a long time. The Portuguese left valuable casinos
and the Chinese let the Jews in soon after the Portuguese left.
It makes sense that foreign casino operators would want to move into Macau, but why would China let foreigners in?
Could it be that one of the largest investors in China since the mid 1970s Richard Blum husband of Dianne Feinstein has something
to do with it??
She's as much the Senator representing China as a Senator representing California.
Another interesting aspect of all this is the "suicide" of Physics Professor Zhang Shoucheng at Stanford just a few hours after
Meng was arrested on Dec 1. According to reliable Chinese sources and widespread reporting on social media Zhang was the conduit
to China from Silicone Valley. He was richly rewarded by Chinese investment in his US companies. IMHO the Chinese understand the
role of Israel and Adelson in US politics but are cautious in going this far. The Chinese are taking the light touch approach
with Trump and his Adelson selected neocons. A Chinese businessman Guo WenGui with the highest connections to the Chinese elites
and security services has sought political asylum in the USA. On the internet he daily speaks to the Chinese diaspora (in Mandarin)
on the complex developments in Chinese official corruption. The NY Times has now started to take him seriously (good idea ) and
reports that he and Steve Bannon have formed an alliance to expose Chinese government activities. You can read all this in the
NY Times. Unz should translate Guo Wengui into English and publish his commentaries. In my analysis he is usually right about
China and has shown remarkable predictive powers. He knows how and what the Chinese think, where the bones are buried and what
comes next. He and Bannon plan to reveal the facts about the recent suicide in France of another prominent Chinese businessman
Wang Jian who was Chairman of Hainan Airlines parent company.
This article by Mr. Unz is a good example of why people should read and support the Unz Review. No one is better equipped to shed
light on otherwise unmentioned interests behind mainstream news events like this one.
Kudos for making a smart suggestion that no doubt will be heard by people who could carry it out.
Good article, but it is only scratching the surface.
Many things would be explained if somebody would find out what is the volume of US investment in China, and what percentage of
it is Jewish.
That would shed light why the rabid Jewish press in US so bestially attacking Trump, after Trump started to impose tariffs on
Chinese goods.
I do not know, but I could guess that Trump reached deep into Jewish profits.
We have no choice than wait what will happen to tariffs after Trump will be replaced.
@Carlton Meyer Canada
declared an end to participating in combat operations in Afghanistan in July 2011 and withdrew its combat forces, leaving a dwindling
number of advisors to Afghan forces. The last Canadian soldier departed Afghanistan in March 2014. You are spot on regarding Bolton's
certifiability.
Trump has been totally phagocyted by the Neo-Cons in the foreign policy. The two pillars of the neocons foreign policy are now
Saudi Arabia and Israel. Trump is benefitting from the neo-cons intelligence and their powerful financial network that he is convinced
would help in his reelection.
Once he is re-elected then he may decrease his reliance on them but for the next few years the jewish lobby will prevail in Trump's
foreign policy. Unless they are not able to protect Trump from falling under the democrats assaults or been eliminated from power,
they are on for more wars, more troubles and more deaths. History will place Trump near Bush junior as neo-cons puppets responsible
for the largest destruction of countries since WWII.
@Brabantian Interesting
that she was arrested in the Chinese colony of Vancouver BC. Maybe the Canadian government is asserting sovereignty over Vancouver
at long last.
That must have been frightening. There she was sitting in the VIP lounge surrounded by deferential airline clerks as usual
and suddenly she's under arrest.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme
World Hegemon.
More delusional than when in 1957 the US government gave Iran a nuclear reactor and weapons grade uranium? In his latter years
Khashoggi 's relative, the weapons dealer Adnan Khashoggi, much later mused on what the US was trying to achieve by giving Iran
vast amounts of armaments, when all it did was set off an arms race in the region. America then switched to Iraq as its cop on
the beat and gave them anything they asked for, and were placatory of Saddam when he started talking crazy. This was under the
US government least attentive to Israel. Yes things should be more balanced as Steven Walt suggests
Averting World Conflict with China, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review If it wants to create the conditions for a final settlement
of the Palestinian problem, then America should be more even handed but it must also be very cautious about Iran. We don't know
who will be in power there in the future and history shows that once those ME counties are given an inch they take a mile.
Saudi Arabia seems quite sensible, its liking for US gov bonds that even Americans think offer too low a rate of interest is
easily explained as payment for US protection. Killing Khashoggi that way was a dreadful moral and foreign policy mistake from
someone who is too young for the amount of authority he has been given, but the victim did not beg for death like more than a
few Uygurs are doing right now. The CIA agent China rounded up with the help of it's network of double agents in the US were doubtless
glad to have their interrogation terminated.
Some sweeteners from Adelson are likely in the Tsunami of dirty Chinese money, which are amusingly being laundered in Canadian
casinos. As Walt points out the Chinese elite want bolt holes and bank accounts in north America. By the way most of the ill gotten
gains are from sale of opiates such as fentanyl.
Targeting Sheldon Adelson's Chinese Casinos
Yes that will work, especially when added to what China is already doing in targeting farmers who supported Trump, so he is
definitely not going to be reelected now you have explained all this to them, and you are also opening up Harvard to their children,
which can only redound to the detriment of white gentiles. Deliberate pouring of the vials of wrath or just accidentally spilling
them? I am begining to wonder.
Thank you, Ron, for a clear-headed and insightful article.
There are however, two tiny infelicities, which I would not want for them to distract from the article's merit.
First, I think the Saudi Arabian Prince you are referring to is Prince Mohammed bin Salman, not "Prince Salman". "Prince
Mohammed" would be the abbreviated form of his name. "Bin" is of course the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew "ben" indicating paternity,
rather than a middle name, so "Salman" is not his surname. "Prince Salman" would refer to the current Saudi King before he was
King, rather than to the current Prince.
Second, maybe the hypothetical of China seizing Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook is not the best analogy since I, and I suspect
others who are aware of her key role in empowering and enriching a deceptive and parasitical industry, would not be terribly troubled
if China seized her. Indeed, we might consider it a public service. Admittedly, it is hard to find a good analogy for a prominent
female executive of a US national champion company since so many of our prominent companies are predatory rather than productive
and scorn their native country rather than serve it.
and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some
have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.
@Baxter"America
is not in any danger." America is in very great danger, but only from within.
Almost half of all millenials believe that Capitalism is evil and that the Socialism should be the guiding economic principle
of this nation. When you point out that it has failed for every nation in history that has tried it, notably the Soviet Union
and more recently Venezuela, they retort that it is because those countries "did it wrong" and that "we will do it right."
When you ask for specifics as what they "did wrong" that we will "do right" they stare at you wordlessly as if you
are the one who is an idiot.
It should also be pointed out that a vast majority of Democrats think that Ocasio-Cortez is brilliant and that we need more
legislators like her.
What if Ms. Meng, was giving Iranian dissidents phones and other equipment to undermine the Government of Iran, starting another
color revolution, that sucks in America and Israel? What if the Trump administration asked that this not be done in order to end
the endless "revolutions" that have been happening and bankrupting our country and threatening Israel? What if the sanctions are
benefiting Iran's government too? China was allowed to become so large at our expense when we opened up trade and moved businesses
over there, but this was to keep them from being too cozy with Soviet Russia, just ask Nixon.
Part of the Zionist plan for a Zionist NWO was laid by David Rockefeller when he sent Kissinger to China to open up Chinas slave
labor to the NWO types like Rockefeller and the Zionist controlled companies in the U.S. and part of the plan was the deindustrialization
of America thus bringing down the American standard of living while raising the standard of living in China.
I will never believe the fake disagreement between the Zionist controlled U.S. and the Chinese government as long as G.M and
Google and the other companies that have shut down their operations in the U.S. and opened operations in China, it is all a NWO
plan to bring down we Americans to third world status and then meld all of us into a Zionist satanic NWO.
The enemy is not at the gates, the enemy is in the government and its name is Zionism and the Zionist NWO!
This is a typical neocon speech. Could be delivered by Hillary Clinton (if we removed some
Tea Party frosting). Attacked both Russia and China. Such a freashly minted US diplomat ;-)
The fact that he is mentioned Skripal poisoning suggests that his IQ is overrated... Or many
be that's his CIA past...
Trump want to pursue "might makes right" policy but times changed and it remains to be seen
how successful he will be.
Could you imagine if someone stood up and called out all the US crimes... 3 million
prisoners, war crimes in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan ect. Poverty disproportionate to the
wealth of the nation. On and on
It doesn't get any clearer than this. A group of people, with no conscience and therefore
no shame, no empathy, no emotion, no love, hold the reins of power on planet earth. They do
not distinguish between Afghani, Iraqi, European, African or American. We are all fodder for
their demented psychopathic agenda. It's time to wake up, because it's coming to your
doorstep.
"... The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the U.S. ..."
calls on
the Trump administration not to kill the INF Treaty:
Losing patience with Russia's refusal to address legitimate concerns over its violation of
the treaty is understandable, but the way Pompeo framed the problem says a great deal about
how poorly the Trump administration is managing this sensitive issue. Pompeo told NATO, "the
burden falls on Russia to make the necessary changes. Only they can save this treaty." Having
built a rare instance of NATO unity, which for the first time has unanimously stated that it
believes Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty, U.S. President Donald Trump's team seems
more intent on using it as an opportunity to berate Russia than to save a valuable treaty
that benefits European and global security. While Russia is to blame for its own violations,
the United States will suffer just as much as Russia does if the treaty fails, and even more
so if the collapse produces more discord than unity within the NATO alliance. By going the
extra mile to save the treaty, instead of issuing ultimatums, the Trump administration might
even pull out a win for once. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.
The INF Treaty is very much worth saving, and quitting it over a Russian violation is as
short-sighted and self-defeating as can be. If the U.S. withdraws, there will be no chance of
negotiating a replacement. Not only will the U.S. be held as the one most responsible for
killing the treaty, but by ending it the Trump administration will be opening the door to an
arms race that no one should want.
The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government
has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the
U.S.
Quitting the INF Treaty unfortunately fits the administration's pattern of reneging on and
abandoning agreements without giving any thought to the consequences of withdrawal. It makes no
sense to give up on a treaty that has proven its worth to the U.S. and our European allies for
more than thirty years.
The Trump administration has made the absolute minimum effort to resolve the dispute with
Russia before quitting the treaty, and that makes it clear that they are just looking for an
excuse to abandon it. If the U.S. gave up so easily on every agreement whenever there was a
violation, it would not keep any of its agreements for very long. The bigger problem is that
the administration's determination to leave the treaty is driven more by Bolton's ideological
hostility to all arms control agreements than it is by any concern about any violations. The
administration is seizing on Russian violations to withdraw from this treaty, but it also has
no desire to keep New START alive, either. Letting New START die would be even more dangerous,
but the administration isn't interested in extending a treaty that Russia has complied with for
almost eight years.
This is a typical neocon speech. Could be delivered by Hillary Clinton (if we removed some
Tea Party frosting). Attacked both Russia and China. Such a freashly minted US diplomat ;-)
The fact that he is mentioned Skripal poisoning suggests that his IQ is overrated... Or many
be that's his CIA past...
Trump want to pursue "might makes right" policy but times changed and it remains to be seen
how successful he will be.
Could you imagine if someone stood up and called out all the US crimes... 3 million
prisoners, war crimes in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan ect. Poverty disproportionate to the
wealth of the nation. On and on
It doesn't get any clearer than this. A group of people, with no conscience and therefore
no shame, no empathy, no emotion, no love, hold the reins of power on planet earth. They do
not distinguish between Afghani, Iraqi, European, African or American. We are all fodder for
their demented psychopathic agenda. It's time to wake up, because it's coming to your
doorstep.
"... The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the U.S. ..."
calls on
the Trump administration not to kill the INF Treaty:
Losing patience with Russia's refusal to address legitimate concerns over its violation of
the treaty is understandable, but the way Pompeo framed the problem says a great deal about
how poorly the Trump administration is managing this sensitive issue. Pompeo told NATO, "the
burden falls on Russia to make the necessary changes. Only they can save this treaty." Having
built a rare instance of NATO unity, which for the first time has unanimously stated that it
believes Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty, U.S. President Donald Trump's team seems
more intent on using it as an opportunity to berate Russia than to save a valuable treaty
that benefits European and global security. While Russia is to blame for its own violations,
the United States will suffer just as much as Russia does if the treaty fails, and even more
so if the collapse produces more discord than unity within the NATO alliance. By going the
extra mile to save the treaty, instead of issuing ultimatums, the Trump administration might
even pull out a win for once. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.
The INF Treaty is very much worth saving, and quitting it over a Russian violation is as
short-sighted and self-defeating as can be. If the U.S. withdraws, there will be no chance of
negotiating a replacement. Not only will the U.S. be held as the one most responsible for
killing the treaty, but by ending it the Trump administration will be opening the door to an
arms race that no one should want.
The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government
has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the
U.S.
Quitting the INF Treaty unfortunately fits the administration's pattern of reneging on and
abandoning agreements without giving any thought to the consequences of withdrawal. It makes no
sense to give up on a treaty that has proven its worth to the U.S. and our European allies for
more than thirty years.
The Trump administration has made the absolute minimum effort to resolve the dispute with
Russia before quitting the treaty, and that makes it clear that they are just looking for an
excuse to abandon it. If the U.S. gave up so easily on every agreement whenever there was a
violation, it would not keep any of its agreements for very long. The bigger problem is that
the administration's determination to leave the treaty is driven more by Bolton's ideological
hostility to all arms control agreements than it is by any concern about any violations. The
administration is seizing on Russian violations to withdraw from this treaty, but it also has
no desire to keep New START alive, either. Letting New START die would be even more dangerous,
but the administration isn't interested in extending a treaty that Russia has complied with for
almost eight years.
Melania slap of Bolton face might be a good sobering measure. But neocons can't probably recover from their
addition
Notable quotes:
"... Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently, Ricardel was one of them. ..."
"... Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat. Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. ..."
"... In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of Lithuania. ..."
"... One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership. ..."
"... From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East. ..."
America has always fancied itself as a "melting pot" of ethnicities and religions that form
a perfect union. The Latin phrase, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one," is even found on the
Great Seal of the United States.
However, as seen in a recent blow-up between First Lady Melania Trump and now-former Deputy
National Security Adviser Mira Ricardel, old feuds from beyond the borders of the United States
can result in major rifts at the highest echelons of the US government.
On November 13, Ms. Trump's communications director, Stephanie Grisham, fired off a tweet
that read: "it is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she [Ricardel] no longer
deserves the honor of serving in this White House." The White House announced Ricardel's
departure the next day, November 14.
Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who
brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she
served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over
seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to
accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC
News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently,
Ricardel was one of them.
The bitter feud between Melania Trump and Mira Ricardel likely has its roots in their
backgrounds in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel was born Mira P. Radielović, the daughter
of Peter Radielovich, a native of Breza, Bosnia-Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel
speaks fluent Croatian and was a member of the Croatian Catholic Church. Melania Trump was born
Melanija Knavs [pronounced Knaus] in Novo Mesto in Slovenia, also in the former Yugoslavia.
Villagers in the village of Sevnica, where Ms. Trump was raised, claim she and her Communist
Party parents were officially atheists. Ms. Trump later converted to Roman Catholicism. She and
her son by Mr. Trump, Barron Trump, speak fluent Slovenian. The Yugoslav Civil War, which began
in earnest in 1991, pitted the nation's ethnic groups against one another. There are ample
reasons, political, ethnic, and religious, for bad blood between the Slovenian-born First Lady
and a first-generation Croatian-American. The "battle royale" between Ms. Trump and Ricardel is
but one example of a constant problem in the United States when individuals with foreign ties
bring age-old inter-ethnic and inter-religious squabbles to governance.
Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued
for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft
of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would
represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat.
Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage
evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National
Security Adviser.
Albright's bias against Serbia saw her influence US policy in casting a blind eye toward the
terrorism carried out by the Kosovo Liberation Army and its terrorist leader Hashim Thaci. That
policy resulted in Washington backing an independent Kosovo, a state beholden to organized
criminal syndicates protected by one of the largest US military bases in Europe, Camp
Bondsteel.
Ties by US foreign policy officials to their countries of origin continued to plagued
administrations after Carter. For example, Kateryna Chumachenko served in the Reagan White
House and State and Treasury Departments and later worked for KPMG as "Katherine" Chumachenko.
She also worked in the White House Public Liaison Office, where she conducted outreach to
various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States, including the Friends
of Afghanistan, on whose board Afghan refugee and later George W. Bush pro-consul in Iraq,
Zalmay Khalilzad, sat. Khalilzad, like Chumachenko, worked in the Reagan State Department.
Chumachenko was married to Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" President Viktor Yushchenko, and,
thusly, became the First Lady of Ukraine. Khalilzad became the Bush 43 ambassador to the UN,
where he often was at loggerheads with Iran, Libya, Syria, and other Muslim states. As was the
case with Albright and her anti-Serb underpinnings, it was difficult to ascertain whose agenda
Khalilzad was serving.
After being fired from the White House, there were reports that Ricardel was offered the
post of ambassador to Estonia. That Baltic country was no stranger to hauling foreign baggage
into the US government. Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a bow-tie wearing
former Estonian language broadcaster for the Central Intelligence Agency-funded Radio Free
Europe ; long time resident of Leonia, New Jersey; could have just as easily ended up in a
senior State Department position rather than President of Estonia. Such is the nature of
divided loyalties among senior US government officials of both major political parties.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US
Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US
government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of
Lithuania.
One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to
support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help
lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership.
From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of
Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World
War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi
German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military
forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an
avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East.
Natalie Jaresko served in positions with the State Department, the Departments of Commerce,
Treasury, the US Trade Representative, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). In
2014, she became the Finance Minister for Ukraine. Earlier, she served as a financial adviser
to Yushchenko. The United States is not the only "melting pot" in North America that suffers
from officials burdened by ethnic dual loyalties. Halyna Chomiak, the Ukrainian-born
émigré mother of Canada's Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, weighs heavily on
Freeland's ability to advance Canada's interests over those of the nation of her mother's
birth.
Trump's entire White House Middle East police team is composed of individuals who place
Israel's interests ahead of the United States. Trump takes his Middle East advice from
principally his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a contributor to and member of the board of the
"Friends of the IDF," an American non-profit that raises funds for the Israeli armed forces.
Kushner was named by Trump as a "special envoy" to the Middle East, while Jason Greenblatt, a
former attorney with the Trump Organization, was named as special envoy in charge of the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although the two positions appear to overlap, Kushner and
Greenblatt, both Orthodox Jews who have little time for Palestinians, are on the same page when
it comes to advancing the West Bank land grabbing policies of the Binyamin Netanyahu government
in Israel. Trump thoroughly Zionized his administration's Middle East policy with the
appointment of another Israel supporter, David M. Friedman, as US ambassador to Israel.
Friedman had been a bankruptcy lawyer with the Trump Organization's primary law firm, Kasowitz,
Benson, Torres & Friedman.
Trump has nominated as US ambassador to South Africa, handbag designer Lana Marks, who was
born in South Africa. Marks, who is known only to Trump from her membership in his Mar-a-Lago,
Florida "billionaires club," left South Africa in 1975, when the country was under the
apartheid regime. Marks claims to speak Afrikaans, the language preferred by the apartheid
regime, and Xhosa, the ethnic language of the late President Nelson Mandela. Because Marks
embellished her professional tennis career by claiming, without proof, participation in the
French Open and Wimbledon in the 1970s, her mastery of Xhosa can be taken with a grain of salt.
So, too, can her ability to deal with the current African National Congress government led by
President Cyril Ramaphosa, who had just been released from prison when Marks left the country
in 1975. The claims and politics of Marks and every official and would-be US official who
failed to shed their biases from their native and ancestral homelands, can all be taken with a
metric ton of salt.
Melting pots are fine, so long as they truly blend together. However, that is not the
situation in the United States as high government officials have difficulty in consigning the
bigotry inherent in family folklore and beliefs to the family scrapbooks.
Melania slap of Bolton face might be a good sobering measure. But neocons can't probably recover from their
addition
Notable quotes:
"... Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently, Ricardel was one of them. ..."
"... Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat. Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. ..."
"... In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of Lithuania. ..."
"... One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership. ..."
"... From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East. ..."
America has always fancied itself as a "melting pot" of ethnicities and religions that form
a perfect union. The Latin phrase, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one," is even found on the
Great Seal of the United States.
However, as seen in a recent blow-up between First Lady Melania Trump and now-former Deputy
National Security Adviser Mira Ricardel, old feuds from beyond the borders of the United States
can result in major rifts at the highest echelons of the US government.
On November 13, Ms. Trump's communications director, Stephanie Grisham, fired off a tweet
that read: "it is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she [Ricardel] no longer
deserves the honor of serving in this White House." The White House announced Ricardel's
departure the next day, November 14.
Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who
brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she
served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over
seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to
accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC
News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently,
Ricardel was one of them.
The bitter feud between Melania Trump and Mira Ricardel likely has its roots in their
backgrounds in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel was born Mira P. Radielović, the daughter
of Peter Radielovich, a native of Breza, Bosnia-Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel
speaks fluent Croatian and was a member of the Croatian Catholic Church. Melania Trump was born
Melanija Knavs [pronounced Knaus] in Novo Mesto in Slovenia, also in the former Yugoslavia.
Villagers in the village of Sevnica, where Ms. Trump was raised, claim she and her Communist
Party parents were officially atheists. Ms. Trump later converted to Roman Catholicism. She and
her son by Mr. Trump, Barron Trump, speak fluent Slovenian. The Yugoslav Civil War, which began
in earnest in 1991, pitted the nation's ethnic groups against one another. There are ample
reasons, political, ethnic, and religious, for bad blood between the Slovenian-born First Lady
and a first-generation Croatian-American. The "battle royale" between Ms. Trump and Ricardel is
but one example of a constant problem in the United States when individuals with foreign ties
bring age-old inter-ethnic and inter-religious squabbles to governance.
Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued
for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft
of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would
represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat.
Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage
evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National
Security Adviser.
Albright's bias against Serbia saw her influence US policy in casting a blind eye toward the
terrorism carried out by the Kosovo Liberation Army and its terrorist leader Hashim Thaci. That
policy resulted in Washington backing an independent Kosovo, a state beholden to organized
criminal syndicates protected by one of the largest US military bases in Europe, Camp
Bondsteel.
Ties by US foreign policy officials to their countries of origin continued to plagued
administrations after Carter. For example, Kateryna Chumachenko served in the Reagan White
House and State and Treasury Departments and later worked for KPMG as "Katherine" Chumachenko.
She also worked in the White House Public Liaison Office, where she conducted outreach to
various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States, including the Friends
of Afghanistan, on whose board Afghan refugee and later George W. Bush pro-consul in Iraq,
Zalmay Khalilzad, sat. Khalilzad, like Chumachenko, worked in the Reagan State Department.
Chumachenko was married to Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" President Viktor Yushchenko, and,
thusly, became the First Lady of Ukraine. Khalilzad became the Bush 43 ambassador to the UN,
where he often was at loggerheads with Iran, Libya, Syria, and other Muslim states. As was the
case with Albright and her anti-Serb underpinnings, it was difficult to ascertain whose agenda
Khalilzad was serving.
After being fired from the White House, there were reports that Ricardel was offered the
post of ambassador to Estonia. That Baltic country was no stranger to hauling foreign baggage
into the US government. Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a bow-tie wearing
former Estonian language broadcaster for the Central Intelligence Agency-funded Radio Free
Europe ; long time resident of Leonia, New Jersey; could have just as easily ended up in a
senior State Department position rather than President of Estonia. Such is the nature of
divided loyalties among senior US government officials of both major political parties.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US
Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US
government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of
Lithuania.
One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to
support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help
lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership.
From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of
Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World
War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi
German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military
forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an
avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East.
Natalie Jaresko served in positions with the State Department, the Departments of Commerce,
Treasury, the US Trade Representative, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). In
2014, she became the Finance Minister for Ukraine. Earlier, she served as a financial adviser
to Yushchenko. The United States is not the only "melting pot" in North America that suffers
from officials burdened by ethnic dual loyalties. Halyna Chomiak, the Ukrainian-born
émigré mother of Canada's Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, weighs heavily on
Freeland's ability to advance Canada's interests over those of the nation of her mother's
birth.
Trump's entire White House Middle East police team is composed of individuals who place
Israel's interests ahead of the United States. Trump takes his Middle East advice from
principally his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a contributor to and member of the board of the
"Friends of the IDF," an American non-profit that raises funds for the Israeli armed forces.
Kushner was named by Trump as a "special envoy" to the Middle East, while Jason Greenblatt, a
former attorney with the Trump Organization, was named as special envoy in charge of the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although the two positions appear to overlap, Kushner and
Greenblatt, both Orthodox Jews who have little time for Palestinians, are on the same page when
it comes to advancing the West Bank land grabbing policies of the Binyamin Netanyahu government
in Israel. Trump thoroughly Zionized his administration's Middle East policy with the
appointment of another Israel supporter, David M. Friedman, as US ambassador to Israel.
Friedman had been a bankruptcy lawyer with the Trump Organization's primary law firm, Kasowitz,
Benson, Torres & Friedman.
Trump has nominated as US ambassador to South Africa, handbag designer Lana Marks, who was
born in South Africa. Marks, who is known only to Trump from her membership in his Mar-a-Lago,
Florida "billionaires club," left South Africa in 1975, when the country was under the
apartheid regime. Marks claims to speak Afrikaans, the language preferred by the apartheid
regime, and Xhosa, the ethnic language of the late President Nelson Mandela. Because Marks
embellished her professional tennis career by claiming, without proof, participation in the
French Open and Wimbledon in the 1970s, her mastery of Xhosa can be taken with a grain of salt.
So, too, can her ability to deal with the current African National Congress government led by
President Cyril Ramaphosa, who had just been released from prison when Marks left the country
in 1975. The claims and politics of Marks and every official and would-be US official who
failed to shed their biases from their native and ancestral homelands, can all be taken with a
metric ton of salt.
Melting pots are fine, so long as they truly blend together. However, that is not the
situation in the United States as high government officials have difficulty in consigning the
bigotry inherent in family folklore and beliefs to the family scrapbooks.
"... The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation . ..."
"... That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. America must always lead on the world stage. ..."
"... the global international republic ..."
"... (as Gallup's polls prove) ..."
"... only corporations whose only customers are the U.S. Government and its chosen allied governments ..."
"... natural-resources extractions ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... A task force of senior former U.S. diplomatic and military officials has come up with suggestions for how Trump could prevent Iran from taking over what's left of liberated Syria and fulfill his own promise to contain Iranian influence in the region. ..."
"... "Most urgently . . . the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran's pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime in Syria," ..."
"... by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America states. "Time is of the essence." ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... America's future generals ..."
"... all nations except the U.S. ..."
"... They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 ..."
"... CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity ..."
On November 29th, Gallup headlined "Democrats
Lead Surge in Belief U.S. Should Be World Leader" and reported that "Three-fourths (75%) of
Americans today think the United States has 'a special responsibility to be the leading nation
in world affairs,' up from 66% in 2010. The surge is driven by Democrats, whose belief in this
idea has increased from 61% eight years ago to 81% now." This finding comes even after the
lie-based and catastrophic U.S. invasions of Iraq in 2003, and of Libya in 2011 (and of so many
others, such as Afghanistan, where the U.S. and Sauds created the Taliban in 1979 ). Americans --
now even increasingly -- want 'their' (which is actually America's billionaires' ) Government to be virtually the
world's government, policing the world. They want this nation's Government to be determining
what international laws will be enforced around the world, and to be enforcing them. Most
Americans don't want the United Nations to have power over the U.S. (its billionaires' ) Government, but instead
want the U.S. Government (its billionaires) to have power over the United Nations (which didn't
authorize any of those evil, lie-based, U.S. invasions).
Not only would doing this bankrupt all constructive domestic functions (health,
education, infrastructure, etc.) of the U.S. federal Government, but it would also increase the
global carnage, as if the U.S. Government hasn't already been doing enough of that, for decades
now.
The leadership for this supremacist craving comes straight from America's top, not from the
masses that are being sampled by the Gallup organization, who only reflect it -- they are duped
by their leaders. Here is how U.S. President Barack Obama (a Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2009,
for nothing at all
but his 'kindly'
but insincere verbiage when he had been a candidate) stated this widespread delusional
American belief in American global moral supremacy, when addressing the graduating class at
West Point Military Academy, on 28 May 2014:
The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation . [Every other nation
is therefore 'dispensable'; we therefore now have "Amerika, Amerika über alles, über
alles in der Welt".] That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the
century to come. America must always lead on the world stage.
This had certainly not been the objective of U.S. President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt when he set up the U.N. just before his death in 1945; he instead wanted the U.N. to
evolve into a democratic government of the world, with elected representatives of each and
every one of the world's governments -- to evolve into becoming the global international
republic -- regardless of whether or not the U.S. Government approves or disapproves of
another nation's government. The idea on which the U.N. was founded was not to involve the U.S.
Government in the internal affairs of other nations, not to be the judge jury and executioner
of other governments that it doesn't like, nor to dictate what other nations should or should
not do within the given nation's boundaries. FDR intended that there instead be democratically
represented, at the U.N., each and every nation, and each and every people within that global
government, where each of these national governments is (hopefully but not necessarily) a
democracy. FDR was just as opposed to dictatorship internationally, as he was opposed to
dictatorship nationally , and he recognized that inevitably some governments will disapprove of
other governments, but he was deeply committed to the view that a need exists for laws and
law-enforcement between nations, on an international level, and not only
within the individual nations, and that each nation is sacrosanct on its own internal
laws. He respected national sovereignty, and opposed international empire. (This was his basic
disagreement with Winston Churchill, then, and with American leaders such as Obama and Trump
now.) Unlike President Obama (and evidently unlike the vast majority of today's Americans) FDR
didn't want this international government to be an American function, but instead an entirely
separate international governmental function, in which there is no international dictatorship
whatsoever -- not American, and not by any other country. He knew that this is the only stable
basis for international peace, and for avoiding a world-annihilating World War III .
Barack Obama rejected FDR's vision, and advocated for the United States as being
(and even as if it already had been for a century) virtually the government over the entire
world, which "must always lead on the world stage." Adolf Hitler had had that very same
international vision for his own country, Germany, "the Thousand-Year Reich," but he lost World
War II; and, then, when FDR died, Hitler's vision increasingly took over in America, so that
ideologically, FDR actually lost WW II, when Harry S. Truman took over the White House
and increasingly thereafter, until today, when the U.S. commits more invasions of foreign
countries than do all other nations in the world combined . Americans (apparently, as shown in
this and other polls) like this, and want more of it. Nobody else
does. For example, nobody (except the U.S. and Saudi and Israeli aristocracies and their
supporters worldwide, which are very few people) supports the U.S. regime's reinstitution of
sanctions against Iran, which the U.S. regime is imposing as the global dictator. America's
economic sanctions are like spitting into the face of FDR, who had opposed such imperialistic
fascism in the more overtly military form when Hitler's regime was imposing it. It's also
spitting at the U.N.
This latest Gallup finding displays an increase, but nothing that's at all anomalous as
compared to the decades-long reality of imperialistic U.S. culture. For decades now, Gallup's
polling has shown that the most respected of all institutions by the American people is the
nation's military -- more than the church, more than the Presidency, more than the U.S.
Supreme Court, more than the press, more than the schools, more than anything. America is
invasion-nation. This is true even after the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the basis of
blatant lies ,
which destroyed
Iraq -- a nation that had never invaded nor even threatened to invade the United States. The
American people are, resolutely, bloodthirsty for conquest, even after having been
fooled into that evil
invasion, and subsequent decades-long military occupation in Iraq, and after subsequent
conquests or attempted conquests, in Libya, Syria , Yemen, and
elsewhere -- all destroying nations that had never invaded nor even threatened America. Why?
How did this mass-insanity, of evil, come to be?
The public simply do not learn. That's a tragic fact. Largely, this fact results from
reality being hidden by the 'news'-media; but, even now, long after the fake 'news' in 2002,
about the U.S. regime's having possessed secret and conclusive evidence of "Saddam's WMD," the
published 'history' about that invasion still does not acknowledge the public's having been
lied-to at that time, by its Government, and by the 'news'-media. So, the public live,
and culturally swim, in an
ongoing river of lies , both as its being 'news', and subsequently as its having been
'history'. This is why the public do not learn: they are being constantly deceived. And they
(as Gallup's polls prove) tolerate being constantly deceived. The public do not rebel
against it. They don't reject either the politicians, or the 'news'-media. They don't demand
that the American public control the American Government and that America's billionaires lose
that control -- especially over the 'news'-media.
Honesty is no longer an operative American value, if it ever was. That's how, and why, Big
Brother (the operation by the international-corporate billionaires) grips Americans' minds to
support foreign Invasions. Americans support liars, and it all comes from the top; it's
directed from the top. It is bipartisan, from both Democratic Party billionaires and Republican
Party billionaires. National politicians will
lose their seats if they disobey.
A good example, of this Big-Brother operation, is America's Politifact, the online site
which is at America's crossover where 'news' and 'history' meet one-another. It's controlled by
billionaires
such as the one who founded Craigslist . Millions of Americans go to
Politifact in order to determine what is true and what is false that is being widely published
about current events. The present writer sometimes links to their articles, where I have
independently verified that there are no misrepresentations in an article. But, like the
'news'-media that it judges, Politifact is also a propaganda-agency for
the (U.S.-Saud-Israeli) Deep State , and so it deceives on the most critically important
international matters. An example of this occurred right after the U.S. regime had overthrown in February 2014
in a bloody coup the democratically elected Government of Ukraine, and replaced it by a rabidly
anti-Russian racist fascist or nazi Government on Russia's doorstep, a regime that was selected
by the rabidly anti-Russian (but lying that it wasn't) Obama regime . This Politifact
article was dated 31 March 2014, right after over 90% of Crimeans had just voted in a
referendum, to rejoin Russia, and to depart from Ukraine, which the Soviet dictator had
transferred them to, separating them from Russia, in 1954. (None of that history of the matter
was even mentioned by Politifact.) The Politifact article was titled
"Viral meme says United States has 'invaded' 22 countries in the past 20 years" , and it
was designed to deceive readers into believing that "Russia's recent annexation of Crimea"
reflected the real instance of "invasion" that Americans should be outraged against -- to
deflect away from America's recent history as being the world's actual invasion-nation. This
propaganda-article said nothing at all about either Crimea or Ukraine except in its opening
line: "A Facebook meme argues that Americans are pretty two-faced when it comes to Russia's
recent annexation of Crimea." It then proceeded to document that the exact number of American
invasions during the prior 20 years wasn't 22, and so Politifact declared the allegation
"false" (as if the exact number were really the entire issue or even the main one, and as if
America's scandalous recent history of invasions were not).
So, it's on account of such drowning-in-propaganda, that the U.S. public not only respect
what U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower derogatorily called the "military-industrial complex,"
but respect it above even the U.S. Presidency itself, and above all other U.S. institutions (as
Gallup's constant polling demonstrates to be the case).
Here's the reality: The same group of no more than a thousand super-wealthy Americans
control both the United States Government and the weapons-manufacturing firms (such as Lockheed
Martin), which are the only corporations
whose only customers are the U.S. Government and its chosen allied governments . So,
these few people actually control the U.S. Government's foreign relations, and foreign
policies. They create and control their own markets. This is the most politically active group
of America's super-rich, because they own America's international corporations and because
their business as owners of the military ones is military policy and also diplomatic policy,
including the conjoining of both of those at the CIA and NSA, including the many coups that
they (via their Government) engineer. They also control all of the nation's
major news-media, which report international affairs in such a manner as to determine which
foreign governments will be perceived by the mass of Americans to constitute the nation's
'enemies' and therefore to be suitable targets for the U.S. military and CIA to invade and
conquer or otherwise "regime-change" -- such as have been the lands of North Vietnam,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Venezuela, etc., at various times.
The weapons-manufacturers won't have any markets, at all, if there are no 'enemy' nations that
are deemed by the public to be suitable targets for their weapons. 'Enemy' nations, and not
only 'allies' (or 'allied' nations), are necessary, in order for the military business to
produce the most profits. Overwhelmingly, if not totally, the chosen 'enemies' are nations that
have never invaded nor even threatened to invade the United States ; and, so, in order to keep
this Government-funded business (the war-profiteering and associated international
natural-resources extractions businesses) growing and thriving, what's essential is
continuing control over the nation's 'news'-media. As Walter Lippmann wrote in 1921,
"the manufacture of consent" is an essential part of this entire operation. It happens via
the media. Even Germany's Nazis needed to do that. Any modern capitalist dictatorship
(otherwise called "fascism") does. The U.S. regime, being a capitalist dictatorship, certainly
does. Physically, Hitler lost, but his ideology won, he won even as nazism (racist fascism)
instead of merely as fascism, and this racism is shown because the U.S. regime is rabidly
racist anti-Russian (
not merely anti-communist ), and has been so for at least a century. (Maybe it's what Obama
actually had secretly in mind when he said "That has been true for the century passed and it
will be true for the century to come." And Trump is no less a liar than Obama, and he continues
this aim of ultimately conquering Russia.) They say they're only against Russia's leader
Vladimir Putin, but Putin shows in all polls of Russians, even in non-Russian polls, to be far
more favorably viewed by Russians than either Barack Obama or Donald Trump are viewed by
Americans. This is why regime-change-in-Russia is increasingly becoming dominated by U.S.
economic sanctions and military, and less dominated by CIA and other coup-organizers. The
actual dictatorship is in America, and it requires participation by its 'news'-media.
Demonizing 'the enemy' is therefore crucial. It is crucial preparation for any
invasion.
The United States Government spends
at least as much money on its military as do all of the other governments in the world
combined . Its 'news'-media (that is to say, the media that are owned by, and that are
advertised in by, the corporations that are controlled by, the same small group of billionaires
-- America's billionaires -- who fund the political campaigns of both the Democratic Party's
and the Republican Party's nominees for the U.S. Congress and the Presidency) may be partisan
for one or the other of the nation's two political Parties, but they all are unitedly partisan
for the international corporations, such as Lockheed Martin, that America's billionaires
control, and that sell only to the U.S. Government and to the foreign governments that are
allied with the U.S. Government. They also are partisan for the U.S.-based oil and gas and
mining international corporations, which need to extract at the lowest costs possible, no
matter how much the given extractee-nation's public might suffer from the deal. "Three-fourths
(75%) of Americans today think the United States has 'a special responsibility to be the
leading nation in world affairs,'" and the actual beneficiaries of this mass-insanity are the
owners of those U.S.-based international corporations, the military and extraction giants.
Anthony Cordesman, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, headlined on 15
August 2016, "U.S.
Wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen: What Are The Endstates?" and he said, "Once again,
the United States does not seem to be learning from its past. The real test of victory is never
tactical success or even ending a war on favorable military terms, it is what comes next." But
he ignored the main reason why these invasions had occurred. America's weapons-manufacturers
won't have any markets, at all, if there are no 'enemy' nations that are deemed by the American
public to be suitable targets for their weapons. Cordesman is there calculating success and
failure on the basis of the myths (such as that the U.S. Government cares about those
"Endstates"), not of the realities (that it craves targets). The realities focus upon the
desires of the owners and executives of the weapons-manufacturers and the extraction-firms, for
ongoing and increased profits and executive bonuses, and not on the needs of America's
soldiers nor on the national security of the American people. Least of all, do they focus upon
the needs -- such as the welfare, freedom, or democracy -- of the Iraqi people, or of the
Syrian people, or of the Libyan people, or of the Yemenite people. It's all just lies, PR.
Those invasions served their actual main functions when they were occurring. "The Endstates"
there are almost irrelevant to those real purposes, the purposes for which the
invasions were, and are, actually being done.
A task force of senior former U.S. diplomatic and military officials has come up with
suggestions for how Trump could prevent Iran from taking over what's left of liberated Syria
and fulfill his own promise to contain Iranian influence in the region.
"Most urgently . . . the United States must impose real obstacles to
Tehran's pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime in Syria,"the reportby the Jewish Institute for National Security of America states.
"Time is of the essence."
The underlying presumption there was that the U.S. regime has legitimate authorization to be
occupying the parts of Syria it has invaded and now occupies, and that Iran does not. But the
reality is that the U.S. regime is occupying Syria instead of assisting Syria's Government to
defeat the U.S.-Saud-Israeli invasion to overthrow and replace Syria's Government, by
stooges who will be
selected by the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia , and the reality is that Iran's forces
there are invitees who are instead assisting Syria's Government against the
Saudi-Israeli-American invasion. In other words: this WP article is basically all
lies. Furthermore, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America is
a front-organization for the fascist regime
that rules Israel , and the WP hid that fact, too, so its cited 'expert' was a
mere PR agency for Israel's aristocracy. So, this is Deep-State propaganda, parading as
'news'.
Americans actually pay their private good money to subscribe to (subsidize) such bad public
'news'papers as that. The billionaire who happens to own that particular 'news'paper (the
WP) , Jeff Bezos, had founded and leads Amazon, which receives almost all of its
profits from Amazon Web Services (AWS), the cloud-computing division, which supplies the U.S.
'Defense' Department, CIA, and NSA. For example, "without AWS and Prime,
Amazon lost $2 billion in the 1st quarter of FY18. These losses come from Amazon's retail
business. About 60% of Amazon's revenue comes from retail and that's where Amazon is losing
money." Amazon is profitable because of what it sells mainly to the Government, but also to
other large U.S. international corporations, and they all want to conquer Syria. None opposes
that evil goal. Although Bezos doesn't like the Sauds, he has actually been (at least until the
Khashoggi matter) one of their main U.S. media champions for the Sauds to take over Syria. It's
all just a fool-the-public game. It works, it succeeds, and that's what Gallup's polls are
demonstrating. The public never learns. It's a fact, which has been proven in many different
ways.
This reality extends also to other nations, allies of the U.S. aristocracy, and not only to
the U.S. regime itself. For example, on 27 November 2018, a whistleblowing former UK
Ambassador, Craig Murray, who is a personal friend of Julian Assange, headlined
"Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6
Lies" , and he proved that Britain's Guardian had lied with total, and totally
undocumented (and probably even totally non-credible), fabrications, alleging that Julian
Assange of WikiLeaks had secretly met (in 2013, 2015, and 2016) with Paul Manafort of the Trump
campaign. The UK, of course, is a vassal-nation of the U.S. aristocracy, and the
Guardian is run by Democratic Party propagandists (paid indirectly by Democratic Party
and conservative Tony-Blair-wing Labour Party billionaires ) and
therefore fabricates in order to assist those Parties' efforts to impeach Trump and to dislodge
Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party's leadership. However, each of America's two political
parties (like the UK's aristocracy itself) represents America's aristocracy, which, like
Britain's aristocracy, is united in its determination
to eliminate Assange -- they are as determined to do that to him, just as Saudi Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud was determined to eliminate Jamal Khashoggi. 'Democracy'?
This? It is Big Brother.
Only if the population boycott lying individuals and organizations, is democracy even
possible to exist in a nation. Democracy can't possibly exist more than truth does. In
political matters, deceit is always treachery; and its practitioners, whenever the evidence for
it is overwhelming and irrefutable, should experience whatever the standard penalty is for
treachery. Only in a land such as that, can democracy possibly exist. Elsewhere, it simply
can't. The only basis for democracy, is truth. Deceit is for dictators, not for
democrats. And deceit reigns, in the U.S. and in its allied countries. Is this really
tolerable? Americans, at least, tolerate it.
When Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the far-right Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street
Journal editorialized against Obama on 10 October 2009, by saying that
"What this suggests to us -- and to the Norwegians -- is the end of what has been called
'American exceptionalism'." Little did anyone then know that after winning re
-election upon the basis of such war-mongering lies from Obama, as that
"America remains the one indispensable nation" , Obama in February 2014 would go so far as
to perpetrate a bloody
coup overthrowing the democratically elected Government of one "dispensable" nation,
Ukraine; and, then, on 28 May of 2014, Obama would be telling America's future
generals , that "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation" and that
Obama would, in that speech, explicitly malign Ukraine's neighbor Russia. He did it, in this
speech, which implicitly called all nations except the U.S. "dispensable." He had
carefully planned and orchestrated Americans' hostility toward Russia. His successor, Trump,
lied saying that he wanted to reverse Obama's policies on this, and Trump promptly, once
becoming elected, increased and expanded those policies. Whatever a deceitfully war-mongering
country like this might be, it's certainly no democracy. Because democracy cannot be built upon
a ceaseless string of lies.
Within individual countries, murder is rightly considered to be the worst of crimes. But the
institution of war tries to convince us that if a soldier murders someone from another country,
whom the politicians have designated as an "enemy", it is no longer a crime, no longer a
violation of the common bonds of humanity. It is "heroic". In their hearts, soldiers know that
this is nonsense. Murder is always murder.
The men, women and children who are supposed to be the "enemy", are just ordinary people,
with whom the soldier really has no quarrel. Therefore when the training of soldiers wears
off a little, so that they realize what they have done, they have to see themselves as
murderers, and many commit suicide. A recent article in the journal "Epidemiology" pointed out
a startling statistic: for every American soldier killed in combat in 2012, 25 committed
suicide. The article also quotes the Department of Veterans Affairs, which says that 18
veterans commit suicide every day.
Obviously, the training of soldiers must overwrite fundamental ethical principles. This
training must make a soldier abandon his or her individual conscience and sense of
responsibility. It must turn the soldier from a compassionate human being into an automaton, a
killing machine. How is this accomplished? Through erosion of of the soldier's self-respect.
Through the endless repetition of senseless rituals where obedience is paramount and from which
rational thought and conscience are banished.
In his book on fanaticism, The True Believer (1951), the American author Eric Hoffer
gives the following description of the factors promoting self-sacrifice: "To ripen a
person for self-sacrifice, he must be stripped of his individual identity. He must cease
to be George, Hans, Ivan or Tado – a human atom with an existence bounded by birth and
death. The most drastic way to achieve this end is by the complete assimilation of the
individual into a collective body. The fully assimilated individual does not see himself and
others as human beings. When asked who he is, his automatic response is that he is a German, a
Russian, a Japanese, a Christian, a Muslim, a member of a certain tribe or family. He has no
purpose, worth or destiny apart from his collective body, and as long as that body lives, he
cannot really die. "The effacement of individual separateness must be thorough.
In every act, however trivial, the individual must, by some ritual, associate himself with
the congregation, the tribe, the party, etcetera. His joys and sorrows, his pride and
confidence must spring from the fortunes and capacities of the group, rather than from
his individual prospects or abilities. Above all, he must never feel alone. Though stranded on
a desert island, he must feel that he is under the eyes of the group. To be cast out from the
group must be equivalent to being cut off from life. "This is undoubtedly a primitive
state of being, and its most perfect examples are found among primitive tribes.
Mass movements strive to approximate this primitive perfection, and we are not imagining
things when the anti-individualist bias of contemporary mass movements strikes us as being a
throwback to the primitive." The conditioning of a soldier in a modern army follows the pattern
described in Eric Hoffer's book. The soldier's training aims at abolishing his sense of
individual separateness, individual responsibility, and moral judgment. It is filled with
rituals, such as saluting, by which the soldier identifies with his tribe-like army
group. His uniform also helps to strip him of his individual identity and to assimilate him
into the group. The result of this psychological conditioning is that the soldier's mind
reverts to a primitive state. He surrenders his moral responsibility, and when the politicians
tell him to kill, he kills.
2 The Nuremberg principles adopted by the UN
In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed "the principles of
international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the
Tribunal". The General Assembly also established an International Law Commission to formalize
the Nuremberg Principles. The result was a list that included Principles VI, which is
particularly important in the context of the illegality of NATO:
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is
responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime
under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility
under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international
law, acted as Head of State or responsible government official, does not relieve him from
responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not
relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact
possible to him.
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the
facts and law.
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace and humanity:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or a plan of a war of aggression or a war in violation
of international treaties, agreements or assurances; ii. Participation in a common plan or
conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited
to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian
population of or in occupied territory; murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war or persons
on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of
cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other
inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or
religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of
or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against
humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Figure 2: Nazi war criminals awaiting judgement at the Nuremberg trials.
Figure 3: You cannot just say "I was acting under orders".
Figure 4: Judgement at Nuremberg
3 The International Criminal Court
The need for an International Criminal Court which would hold individuals responsible for
such crimes as genocide had long been recognized, and at a special session of the United
Nations General Assembly in Rome in June, 1998, the ICC was established by a vote of 120 to 7,
with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the Rome Statute, which
established the ICC, were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen. In
2002, after the 60 needed ratifications had been obtained, the International Criminal
Court went into force. Today the ICC is located at the Hague, Netherlands.
It has the power to judge cases involving genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes,
provided that no national court is willing to judge them. Although the ICC functions
imperfectly, and is opposed by several powerful nations, it is impossible to underestimate its
importance. For the first time individuals are being held responsible for crimes against
international law.
As we mentioned above in connection with collective punishment, attempts to coerce
nation-states by means of sanctions are neither just nor effective. Political
Federations, where laws act on individuals, have historically proved to be effective,
just and stable. Thus the establishment of the ICC can be seen as a vital step towards a United
Nations Charter reform which would transform the UN from a confederation to a federation.
The ICC deserves the wholehearted support of everyone who believes that institutionalized
injustice and the brutal rule of military force should be replaced by a world of peace, justice
and law. We must remember the words of the Icelandic saga of Njal: "With law shall our land be
built up, but with lawlessness laid waste."
4 The illegality of NATO
Violation of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles
In recent years, participation in NATO has made European countries accomplices in US
efforts to achieve global hegemony by means of military force, in violation of
international law, and especially in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles.
Former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Christof von Sponeck used the following words to
express his opinion that NATO now violates the UN Charter and international law: "In the 1949
North Atlantic Treaty, the Charter of the United Nations was declared to be NATO's legally
binding framework. However, the United-Nations monopoly of the use of force, especially as
specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted according to the 1999 NATO
doctrine. NATO's territorial scope, until then limited to the Euro-Atlantic region, was
expanded by its members to include the whole world."
Article 2 of the UN Charter requires that "All members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state." This requirement is somewhat qualified by Article 51, which
says that "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until
the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security." Thus, in general, war is illegal under the UN Charter. Self-defense against an armed
attack is permitted, but only for a limited time, until the Security Council has had time to
act. The United Nations Charter does not permit the threat or use of force in preemptive wars,
or to produce regime changes, or for so-called "democratization", or for the domination of
regions that are rich in oil. NATO must not be a party to the threat or use of force for such
illegal purposes.
In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed "the principles of
international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the
Tribunal". The General Assembly also established an International Law Commission to formalize
the Nuremberg Principles. The result was a list that included Principles VI and VII, which are
particularly important in the context of the illegality of NATO: Robert H. Jackson, who was the
chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, said that "To initiate a war of
aggression is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime,
differing from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of
the whole."
Violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
At present, NATO's nuclear weapons policies violate both the spirit and the text of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in several respects: Today there are an estimated 200 US
nuclear weapons still in Europe The air forces of the nations in which they are based are
regularly trained to deliver the US weapons. This "nuclear sharing", as it is called, violates
Articles I and II of the NPT, which forbid the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclearweapon
states. It has been argued that the NPT would no longer be in force if a crisis arose, but
there is nothing in the NPT saying that the treaty would not hold under all circumstances.
Article VI of the NPT requires states possessing nuclear weapon to get rid of them within a
reasonable period of time. This article is violated by fact that NATO policy is guided by a
Strategic Concept, which visualizes the continued use of nuclear weapons in the foreseeable
future.' The principle of no-first-use of nuclear weapons has been an extremely important
safeguard over the years, but it is violated by present NATO policy, which permits the
first-use of nuclear weapons in a wide variety of circumstances.
Must Europe really be dragged into a potentially catastrophic war with Russia?
At present the United States government is trying to force the European members of NATO to
participate in aggressive military operations near to Russia. Europe must refuse. The hubris,
and reckless irresponsibility of the US government in risking a catastrophic war with Russia is
almost beyond belief, but the intervention in Ukraine is only one in a long series of US
interventions: During the period from 1945 to the present, the US interfered, militarily or
covertly, in the internal affairs of a large number of nations: China, 1945-49; Italy,
1947-48; Greece, 1947-49; Philippines, 1946-53; South Korea, 1945-53; Albania, 1949-53;
Germany, 1950s; Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1953-1990s; Middle East, 1956-58; Indonesia, 1957-58;
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64; Vietnam, 1950-73; Cambodia, 1955-73; The Congo/Zaire, 196065;
Brazil, 1961-64; Dominican Republic, 1963-66; Cuba, 1959-present; Indonesia, 1965; Chile,
1964-73; Greece, 1964-74; East Timor, 1975-present; Nicaragua, 1978-89; Grenada, 1979-84;
Libya, 1981-89; Panama, 1989; Iraq, 1990-present; Afghanistan 1979-92; El Salvador, 1980-92;
Haiti, 1987-94; Yugoslavia, 1999; and Afghanistan, 2001-present, Syria, 2013-present. Egypt,
2013-present.
Most of these interventions were explained to the American people as being necessary to
combat communism (or more recently, terrorism), but an underlying motive was undoubtedly the
desire of the ruling oligarchy to put in place governments and laws that would be favorable to
the economic interests of the US and its allies. Also, the militaryindustrial complex needs
justification for the incredibly bloated military budgets that drain desperately needed
resources from social and environmental projects. Do the people of Europe really want to
participate in the madness of aggression against Russia? Of course not! What about European
leaders? Why don't they follow the will of the people and free Europe from bondage to the
United States? Have our leaders been bribed? Or have they been blackmailed through personal
secrets, discovered by the long arm of NSA spying?
Suggestions for further reading
Matt Wood, Crunching the Numbers on the Rate of Suicide Among Veterans, Epidemiology,
April 27, (2012).
Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, Harper and Row, (1951).
Daniele Archibugi and Alice Pease, Crime and Global Justice. The Dynamics of
International Punishment, Polity Press, (2018).
David Bosco, Rough Justice: The International Criminal Court's Battle to Fix the World,
One Prosecution at a Time, Oxford University Press, (2014).
Bruce Broomhall, International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between
Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2003).
Anne-Marie de Brouwer, Supranational Criminal Prosecution of Sexual Violence: The ICC and
the Practice of the ICTY and the ICTR. Antwerp – Oxford: Intersentia (2005).
Karin Calvo-Goller, The Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court ICTY and
ICTR Precedents, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, (2006),
A freely downloadable book
A new 418-page book entitled "A World Federation" may be downloaded and circulated gratis
from the following link:
J ohn Scales Avery is a theoretical chemist at the University of Copenhagen. He is noted for
his books and research publications in quantum chemistry, thermodynamics, evolution, and
history of science. His 2003 book Information Theory and Evolution set forth the view that the
phenomenon of life, including its origin, evolution, as well as human cultural evolution, has
its background situated in the fields of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information
theory. Since 1990 he has been the Chairman of the Danish National Group of Pugwash Conferences
on Science and World Affairs. During his tenure The Pugwash Movement won a nobel peace prize.
Between 2004 and 2015 he also served as Chairman of the Danish Peace Academy. He founded the
Journal of Bioenergetics and Biomembranes, and was for many years its Managing Editor. He also
served as Technical Advisor to the World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe
(1988-1997).
"... I've come to believe that Trump's role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the
Congress and then does. I don't think he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the
system. I don't think the Congress is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that. ..."
"... I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration
before Trump arrived in Washington. ..."
"... Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should we sign a trade agreement and let the other side
cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but
they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions that no one could answer. ..."
"... I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies
are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really on
our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you need to
be wise. ..."
"... it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't
really feel the crisis. ..."
"... If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west,
you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing.
They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster.
..."
"... That's kind of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does
not work in a democracy... ..."
"... If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans.
In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of average people is now the party of the rich. ..."
"... He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing
them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was this large group of voters who had no one representing them
and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still ongoing. ..."
"... In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class.
..."
"... I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our voters and we're going to represent them
whether we want it or not. ..."
"... I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely,
there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque
to me. It would've been grotesque to them. ..."
"... The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons
which they rejected, and I do too. ..."
"... We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed beneath its wheels. ..."
"... Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change
the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed
is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change. ..."
"... In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again. ..."
"... Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime? ..."
"... How close to a revolution is your country? ..."
"... The country is getting redder and bluer. ..."
"... Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration? ..."
The Swiss are very suspicious of anybody who is boastful. That's why I have a question about Trump
I hate that about him. I hate that it's not my culture. I didn't grow up like that.
In your book you speak a lot about people who attack Trump, but you actually don't say very much about Trump's record.
That's true.
Do you think he has kept his promises? Has he achieved his goals?
No. He hasn't?
No. His chief promises were that he would build the wall, de-fund planned parenthood, and repeal Obamacare, and he hasn't done
any of those things. There are a lot of reasons for that, but since I finished writing the book, I've come to believe that Trump's
role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the Congress and then does. I don't think
he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the system. I don't think the Congress
is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that.
I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration
before Trump arrived in Washington. People were bothered about it in different places in the country. It's a huge country, but
that was not a staple of political debate at all. Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should
we sign a trade agreement and let the other side cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was
to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions
that no one could answer.
Apart from asking these very important questions has he really achieved nothing?
Not much. Not much. Much less than he should have. I've come to believe he's not capable of it.
Why should he be not capable?
Because the legislative process in this country by design is highly complex, and it's designed to be complex as a way of diffusing
power, of course, because the people who framed our Constitution, founded our country, were worried about concentrations of power.
They balanced it among the three branches as you know and they made it very hard to make legislation. In order to do it you really
have to understand how it works and you have to be very focused on getting it done, and he knows very little about the legislative
process, hasn't learned anything, hasn't and surrounded himself with people that can get it done, hasn't done all the things you
need to do so. It's mostly his fault that he hasn't achieved those things. I'm not in charge of Trump.
The title of your book is "Ship of Fools". You write that an irresponsible elite has taken over America. Who is the biggest
fool?
I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies
are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really
on our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you
need to be wise. I'm not arguing for populism, actually. I'm arguing against populism. Populism is what you get when your leaders
fail. In a democracy, the population says this is terrible and they elect someone like Trump.
When did you first notice that this elite is getting out of touch with the people?
Well, just to be clear, I'm not writing this from the perspective of an outsider. I mean I've lived in this world my whole life.
Which world exactly?
The world of affluence and the high level of education and among-- I grew up in a town called La Jolla, California in the south.
It was a very affluent town and then I moved as a kid to Georgetown here in Washington. I've been here my whole life. I've always
lived around people who are wielding authority, around the ruling class, and it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that
I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't really feel the crisis.
If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west,
you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing.
They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster.
Rural America, America outside three or four cities is really falling apart. I thought if you're running the country, you should
have a sense of that. I remember thinking to myself, nobody I know has any idea that this is happening an hour away. That's kind
of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does not work in a democracy...
You become Venezuela.
You write about vanishing middle class. When you were born over 60 % of Americans ranked middle class. Why and when did
it disappear?
If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans.
In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy.
The Democratic Party is out of touch with the working class.
Well, that's the remarkable thing. For 100 years the Democratic Party represented wage earners, working people, normal people,
middle class people, then somewhere around-- In precisely peg it to Clinton's second term in the tech boom in the Bay Area in Francisco
and Silicon Valley, the Democratic Party reoriented and became the party of technology, of large corporations, and of the rich. You've
really seen that change in the last 20 years where in the top 10 richest zip codes in the United States, 9 of them in the last election
just went for Democrats. Out of the top 50, 42 went for Democrats. The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of
average people is now the party of the rich.
Donald Trump, who is often seen as this world-changing figure is actually a symptom of something that precedes him that I sometimes
wonder if he even understands which is this realignment. He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican
Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was
this large group of voters who had no one representing them and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still
ongoing.
In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class.
The Republican Party which has never represented the middle class doesn't want to. That is the source of really all the confusion
and the tension that you're seeing now. I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our
voters and we're going to represent them whether we want it or not.
They have to, or they will lose.
They have to, or they will die. Yes.
You're writing in an almost nostalgic tone about the old liberals? People like Miss Raymond, your first-class teacher. You
describe her wonderfully in the book. You say that they have vanished. What happened?
I find myself in deep sympathy with a lot of the aims of 1970s liberals. I believe in free speech, and I instinctively side with
the individual against the group. I think that the individual matters, I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary
wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely, there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would
send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque to me. It would've been grotesque to them.
The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons
which they rejected, and I do too. They were also suspicious of market capitalism. They thought that somebody needed to push
back against the forces of the market, not necessarily because capitalism was bad, capitalism is not bad, it's also not a religion.
We don't have to follow it blindly. We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed
beneath its wheels.
Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change
the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed
is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change.
Is that really so? Look at the grassroot movement on the left: Alexandra Ocasio Cortez and her socialist group. It is probably
a 100 years ago when Americans last saw a socialist movement of substance emerging?
Yes. You're absolutely right. That's the future.
In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again.
Well, you're absolutely right. You're incisive correct to say that the last time we saw this was 100 years ago, which was another
pivot point in our economic and social history. Where, after 10,000 years of living in an Agrarian society, people moved to the cities
to work in factories and that upended the social order completely. With that came huge political change and a massive reaction.
In the United States and in Western Europe labor unions moderated the forces of change and allowed us to preserve capitalism in
the form that we see it now... You're seeing the exact same dynamic play out today, we have another, as I said, economic revolution,
the digital age, which is changing how people work, how they make money, how families are structured. There is a huge reaction to
that, of course, because there always is, because normal people can't handle change at this pace. People are once again crying out
for some help. They feel threatened by the change. What bothers me is that there is no large group of sensible people asking, how
can we buffer this change? How can we restrain it just enough, not to stop it, but to keep people from overreacting and becoming
radical?
Talking about radical. Recently, a radical left-wing group have threatened to storm your Washington home. How is your wife?
How is your family?
They are fine, they're pretty tough. They're rattled.
The Antifa-mob came right to the door of your home?
Yes, they did and threatened my wife.
Which must have been absolutely scary?
Yes, it was. My wife was born in the city, my four children were born here, we're not moving.
Your attackers have a goal, they're trying to silence you.
Of course. I would never, of course, that's a cornerstone of Western civilization is expression and freedom of conscience. You
can tell me how to behave, you can force me not to sleep or take my clothes off in public, that's fine. Every society has the right
to control behavior. But no one has the right to control what you believe. You can't control my conscience, that's mine alone. Only
totalitarian movements do that, and that's what they're attempting. Of course, I would die first I'm never going to submit to that.
Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime?
No, I've never seen anything like this. What's so striking is that [chuckles] this is really... The radicalism is not on behalf
of people who are actually suffering, fellow Americans who are suffering, on behalf of the 70,000 people who died of drug ODs last
year, or on behalf of the people displaced by automation in GM, or whatever, on behalf of those dying American low class, it's really
on behalf of theoretical goals.
They're saying that I [Tucker Carlson] am saying naughty things that shouldn't be allowed to be expressed in public. Basically,
it's a totalitarian movement. Totally unhelpful. I would say childish. What they're really doing is defending the current order.
They're the shock troops of the elites actually. Actually, what you're seeing is something amazing, you're seeing for the first time
in history a revolution being waged against the working class. When does that happen?
Your way of debating is very tough. You're sitting there, hammering your guests. Sometimes we have a bit of a problem to
understand that. For us it's a bit disturbing.
Of course, it is. It's disturbing for me too!
How tough do you need to be nowadays to have an audience?
Less, I think than sometimes we put into it or I put into it. I'm actually, in my normal life, I think a pretty gentle person.
I've never had a yelling fight with my wife in 34 years. I mean, I've never yelled at my children. No, I don't ever.
Never?
Not one time. No, it's not how I communicate. I never want to be impolite. I have been impolite. I've lost my temper a couple
times, but I don't want to. I don't like that. I believe in civility.
... ... ...
How close to a revolution is your country?
By revolution, let me be clear, I don't think that we're anywhere near an outbreak of civil war, armed violence between two sides
for a bunch of different reasons... Testosterone levels are so low and marijuana use is so high that I think the population is probably
too ... What you don't have, prerequisite fall revolution, violent revolution, is a large group of young people who are comfortable
with violence and we don't have that. Maybe that will change. I hope it doesn't. I don't want violence for violence. I appall violence,
but I just don't see that happening. What I see happening most likely is a kind of gradual separation of the states.
If you look at the polling on the subject, classically, traditionally, Americans had antique racial attitudes. If you say, "Would
you be okay with your daughter marrying outside her race?" Most Americans, if they're being honest, would say, "no, I'm not okay
with that. I'm not for that." Now the polling shows people are much more comfortable with a child marrying someone of a different
race than they are marrying someone of a different political persuasion.
"I'd rather my daughter married someone who's Hispanic than liberal", someone might say. That is one measure. There are many measures,
but that's one measure of how politically divided we are and I just think that over time, people will self-segregate. It's a continental
country. It's a very large piece of land and you could see where certain states just become very, very different. Like if you're
Conservative, are you really going to live in California in 10 years? Probably not.
Orange County is now purely Democrat.
That's exactly right. You're going to move and if you're very liberal, are you really going to want to live in Idaho? Probably
not.
The country is getting redder and bluer.
Exactly.
This revolution you are warning about - What needs to be done to stop it from happening?
Just the only thing you can do in a democracy which is address the legitimate concerns of the population and think more critically
and be more wise in your decision making. Get a handle on technology. Technology is the driver of the change, so sweep aside the
politics, the fundamental fact about people is they can't metabolize change at this pace because as an evolutionary matter, they're
not designed to, they're not. If you asked your average old person what's the most upsetting thing about being old? You expect them
to say, "Well, my friends are dead". But that's not what they say. Or "I have to go to the bathroom six times a night". That's not
what they say.
You know what they say? "Things are too different. This is not the country I grew up in. I don't recognize this." All people hate
that. It doesn't mean you're a bigot, it means you're human. Unless you want things to fall apart, become so volatile that you can't
have a working economy, you need to get a handle on the pace of change. You have to slow it down.
How important is migration in terms of change?
It's central because nothing changes the society more quickly or more permanently than bringing in a whole new population and
that's not an attack on anybody. There are lots of populations- there are lots of immigrants who are much more impressive than I
am. I have no doubt about that. I'm not attacking immigrants. I'm merely saying that the effect on the people who already live here
is real and they're not bigots for feeling that way.
You come from an ancient country with a series of ancient cultures within it and if you woke up one morning and everyone was speaking
Amharic and you didn't recognize any of your surroundings, that would be deeply upsetting to you.
What you saying, it's necessary to slow it down, control it?
You have to slow it down. Look at the Chinese. I abhor, I despise the Chinese government. However, I'm willing to acknowledge
wise behavior when I see it. The Chinese would never accept this pace of demographic change not simply because they're racist, though
of course, they are, but that's not the point. The point is because they don't want their society to fall apart because they're in
charge of it.
The childlike faith that we have in America, and America is the worst at this, that all change is good and that progress is inevitable
and if something is new and fresh and more expensive, it's got to be better.
It is kind of refreshing for Europeans that even Hillary Clinton tells Europeans, "You have got to stop this. You've got
to get control of migration or you disintegrate."
John Kerry said the same thing, amazingly. They're telling the truth.
Do you think Europe is going to be able to get in control of that? We have 28 countries in the EU. And Switzerland is not
a member?
So smart, so smart... You know why? Because they're mountain people. Love them. You know why? Because they're suspicious, that's
what I like about them.
[laughter]
Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration?
The EU has been doomed since the first day because it's inconsistent with human nature. The reason we have nation states is because
people wanted them, it's organic. A nation-state is just a larger tribe and it's organized along lines that make sense. They evolved
over thousands of years. To ignore it and destroy it because you think that you've got a better idea, is insane!
[And with that, our interview concludes. It has already run far past the allotted 40 minutes. I offer to take Carlson, who seems
to be very passionate about Switzerland, on a ski run in our Alps soon. Perhaps a smoke in one of the outdoor saunas I tell him smell
like rotten eggs. Ambassador Grenell is on the phone line patiently waiting.]
"... The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer an alternative way. ..."
"... The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan. ..."
"... But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership. ..."
The US will lead a new liberal world order, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared.
Organizations and treaties not fitting this picture must be scrapped or reformed, so that
non-compliers could not use them against America. The vision of the bold new and prosperous
(for the US and its supporters) world was delivered by Pompeo in a keynote
speech to the German Marshall Fund on Tuesday.
The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is
failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme –
sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer
an alternative way.
China, as well as Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and other nations on the US grudge list got
their share of bashing in the speech, but its focus was more on international institutions,
which Pompeo claimed to be incompatible with his grand vision.
The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the
Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the
International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit
should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually
is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans
accountable for crimes in Afghanistan.
The Paris Agreement on climate change was bad for America, so it left. NAFTA was bad for
America, so it forced a renegotiation. The nuclear deal with Iran didn't make Tehran
complacent, so it had to go.
But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam?
SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians
from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership.
Watch Murad Gazdiev's report about Pompeo's "new liberal order" to find out
more.
Trump lost control of foreign policy, when he appointed Pompeo. US voters might elect Hillary with the same effect on foreign policy
as Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel. ..."
"... Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package. Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. ..."
"... The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF. ..."
Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable
Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.
Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and
the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.
Trump, Israel and the Sawdi's. US no longer needs middle east oil for strategic supply. Trump is doing away with the petro-dollar
as that scam has run its course and maintenance is higher than returns. Saudi and other middle east oil is required for global
energy dominance.
Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package.
Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA as
US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money
is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in
reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North.
Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about. The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it
to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF.
"... Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to. ..."
"... Time for Bolton to send for the clairvoyant Theresa May who has managed to accuse Russia, and Mr. Putin personally, in the Skripals' poisoning n the absence of any evidence ..."
Comment section (David Wooten): "According to the crown prince himself, Trump's [Jewish]
son-in-law gave him a secret list of his enemies -- the ones like Al Aweed who were
tortured and shaken down for cash. Khashoggi might even have been on that list.
One or more of the tortured ones likely tipped off Erdogan, which is why Turkey only
needed to enter the consulate, retrieve the recorded audio device they planted, and walk out
with the evidence. Turkey also has evidence that puts MbS' personal doctor and other staff
arriving in Turkey at convenient times to do the job -- and probably more. Khashoggi was
anything but a nice person but Trump cannot say that or he'll likely be accused of
involvement in his murder.
Dissociation is made far more difficult by the fact that Jared is a long time friend of
Netanyahu who, like Jared, hasbefriended MbS .
Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his
own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly
daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to.
Were it not for the Khashoggi affair, fewer Republican seats would have been lost in the
election."
-- Time for Bolton to send for the clairvoyant Theresa May who has managed to accuse
Russia, and Mr. Putin personally, in the Skripals' poisoning n the absence of any
evidence .
These people -- Bolton, May, Gavin Williamson and likes -- are a cross of the ever-eager
whores and petty brainless thieves. To expose themselves as the willing participants in the
ZUSA-conducted farce requires a complete lack of integrity.
Of course, there is no way to indict the journalist's murderers since the principal
murderer is a personal friend of Netanyahu and Jared.
Jump, Justice, jump, as high as ordered by the "chosen."
By the way, why do we hear nothing about Seth Rich who was murdered in the most surveilled
city of the US?
@annamaria A 1st
grader can see that MbS was behind the murder of Kashoggi.
Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his
own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly
daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to.
I've been hoping for this since they moved to Washington with 'big daddy'.
@Anon " crappy
bedtime reading the woolyheadedness "
Hey, Anon[436], is this how your parents have been treating you? My condolences.
If you feel that you succeeded with your "see, a squirrel" tactics of taking attention
from the zionists' dirty and amoral attempts at coverup of the murder of the journalists
Khashoggi, which was accomplished on the orders of the clown prince (the dear friend of Bibi
& Jared), you are for a disappointment.
One more time for you, Anon[436]: the firm evidence of MbS involvement in the murder of
Khashoggi contrasts with no evidence of the alleged poisoning of Skripals by
Russian government.
The zionists have been showing an amazing tolerance towards the clown prince the murderer
because zionists need the clown prince for the implementation of Oded Yinon Plan for Eretz
Israel.
The stinky Skripals' affair involves harsh economic actions imposed on the RF in the
absence of any evidence , as compared to no sanctions in response to the actual murder
of Khashoggi, which involved MbS according to the availableevidence . Thanks
to the zionists friendship with the clown prince, the firm evidence of Khashoggi murder is of
no importance. What else could be expected from the "most moral" Bibi & Kushner and the
treasonous Bolton.
The stinky Skripals' affair involves harsh economic actions imposed on the RF in the
absence of any evidence, as compared to no sanctions in response to the actual murder of
Khashoggi, which involved MbS according to the available evidence. Thanks to the zionists
friendship with the clown prince, the firm evidence of Khashoggi murder is of no
importance. What else could be expected from the "most moral" Bibi & Kushner and the
treasonous Bolton.
"... The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer an alternative way. ..."
"... The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan. ..."
"... But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership. ..."
The US will lead a new liberal world order, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared.
Organizations and treaties not fitting this picture must be scrapped or reformed, so that
non-compliers could not use them against America. The vision of the bold new and prosperous
(for the US and its supporters) world was delivered by Pompeo in a keynote
speech to the German Marshall Fund on Tuesday.
The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is
failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme –
sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer
an alternative way.
China, as well as Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and other nations on the US grudge list got
their share of bashing in the speech, but its focus was more on international institutions,
which Pompeo claimed to be incompatible with his grand vision.
The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the
Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the
International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit
should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually
is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans
accountable for crimes in Afghanistan.
The Paris Agreement on climate change was bad for America, so it left. NAFTA was bad for
America, so it forced a renegotiation. The nuclear deal with Iran didn't make Tehran
complacent, so it had to go.
But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam?
SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians
from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership.
Watch Murad Gazdiev's report about Pompeo's "new liberal order" to find out
more.
"... It was Bolton who a week ago intentionally damaged U.S. relations with China. ..."
"... Meng Wanzhou is a daughter of the founder and main owner of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, and was groomed to be his successor. The company is extremely well regarded in China. It is one its jewel pieces and, with 170,000 employees and $100 billion in revenues, an important political actor. ..."
"... The arrest on December 1 happened while president Trump was negotiating with president Xi of China about trade relations. Trump did not know about the upcoming arrest but Bolton was informed of it ..."
"... It was a trap. The arrest is a public slap in the face of China and to Xi personally. It will not be left unanswered. Whatever Trump may have agreed upon with Xi is now worthless. John Bolton intentionally sabotaged the talks and the U.S. relations with China. ..."
"... Having read this in context with the comments (especially those by Denk and others) previous on this topic, I would ask if anyone can provide a time line of US clandestine negative (and sometimes fatal) actions against high level Chinese engineers and telecoms. Again, the above summary is outstanding. ..."
"... The terrifying aspect is Bolton, Pompeo - puppets both for shadow power players - have no constraints whatsoever, and obviously operate without any constraint or regard for our severely (cognitively and emotionally) challenged president ..."
"... The timing of this arrest - while Trump and Xi are dining and Sabrina Meng is on her way to the G-20 conference gives a loud message that Trump is serves at the pleasure of his neocon staff - and son in law, the latter being instrumental in the firing of Rex Tillerson, the hiring of Bolton, Pompeo and the impending firing of Gen. Kelly. ..."
"... Trump is a global front for a different approach to maintaining global hegemony but make no mistake, Trump is not fronting for you ..."
"... Arresting US business execs by China is a mistake that would be cheered by Bolton and Navarro. The provocation of arresting Meng is designed by the Trump team to provoke China to arrest US business leaders and thus destroy their direct investment into China. ..."
"... The enemy of China is not US businesses but rather the neocon dominated US govt. To impact this group, China needs to cut off their drug supply(their financing) thru no longer buying their USTs to finance and enable their massive military spending and financial aggression. ..."
"... Canada's role in this is shocking. It is all of a piece with the surrender to the USA in the Trade negotiations whereby, inter alia, Canada is not allowed to enter into Trade agreements with 'non-market' economies. The non-market formulation being code for unapproved by Uncle Sam. No doubt the Nazi Freeland is running this show. In this she is ably seconded by the 'opposition' Tories and the social fascist NDP which is as enthusiastic for war against China as it is for an attack on the Donbas. ..."
"... Those who talk about Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, etc. direct our attention to a shell game. They are all in on the scam. How better to say it? There is one party: the war party. Trump is a member of TEAM USA. US political maestros dance to the tune of the Deep State/neolibcon. ..."
"... With respect to Foreign Policy, how much real difference is there between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? They have all supported MIC, Israel, and expanding the Empire - aka Job #1 ..."
"... Bolton works for Adelson probably Pompeo does too. So Trump can't fire their crazy asses any time he chooses. ..."
"... Adelson has made millions with his gambling dens. In some ways it's a bit like what the East India Company did with opium. ..."
"... I think we can assume that the arrest was not an unwelcome surprise for Trump, or he would have reversed it. He knew, and accepts it. It's total asymmetric war on China. The arrest was on December 1. Trump twitter, Dec 7 China talks are going very well! here ..."
"... Does the fact that Huawei recently passed Apple for the number 2 phone sales have anything to do with this ..."
"... CNN: A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22, it was revealed at the hearing Friday here . She was arrested on December 1. Meng didn't know about this "issued warrant?" How does this 'system of laws' work, anyhow? Perhaps the warrant issue was classified secret, for US national security? ..."
"... The problem with Iran is (as was with Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and even Syria) that a country with an independent/non-aligned foreign policy has control of a large quantity of valuable natural resources for which there is a constant and relatively insatiable demand. If they cannot be controlled they they should be destroyed so they cannot pursue their own agenda and ignore the dictates of the west. China and Russia are this problem writ large, and they have nukes and a means of delivery to all corners of the globe... ..."
Neocons Sabotage Trump's Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail ChinaWilly2 , Dec 7, 2018 2:30:00
PM |
link
CNN reports that White House chief of staff John Kelly is
expected
to resign soon . There have been similar rumors before, but this time the news may actually be true. That is bad for Trump
and U.S. policies. Kerry is one a the few counterweights to national security advisor John Bolton. His replacement will likely
be whoever Bolton chooses. That will move control over Trump policies further into the hands of the neo-conservatives.
It was Bolton who a week ago intentionally damaged U.S. relations with China.
The U.S. Justice Department arranged for Canada to arrest the chief financial officer of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, over alleged
U.S. sanctions violations with regards to Iran. The case is not over the sanction Trump recently imposed, but over an alleged
collision with the sanction regime before the nuclear deal with Iran. The details are still unknown.
Meng Wanzhou is a daughter of the founder and main owner of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, and was groomed to be his successor.
The company is extremely well regarded in China. It is one its jewel pieces and, with 170,000 employees and $100 billion in revenues,
an important political actor.
The arrest on December 1 happened while president Trump was negotiating with president Xi of China about trade relations.
Trump did not know about the upcoming arrest but
Bolton was informed of it:
While the Justice Department did brief the White House about the impending arrest, Mr. Trump was not told about it. And the
subject did not come up at the dinner with Mr. Xi. Mr. Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said on NPR that
he knew about the arrest in advance, ..
Bolton surely should have informed Trump before his dinner with Xi, in which Bolton took part, but he didn't.
It was a trap. The arrest is a public slap in the face of China and to Xi personally. It will not be left unanswered. Whatever
Trump may have agreed upon with Xi is now worthless. John Bolton intentionally sabotaged the talks and the U.S. relations with
China.
Posted by b at
02:00 PM |
Comments (76) - I almost starting to feel sorry for D.A.A.D. Trump.
- We have seen in the last years that the US has been (deliberately) ratcheting up tensions in the Far East. And the summit between
Trump & Kim Jung Un was a severe threat for that (deliberate) increase of tensions. But the US & european media have told their
readers/listener/watchers that China was to blame for the increase of tensions.
The death of Shoucheng Zhang, by falling from a building, supposedly due to depression, reminded me of an incident I had read
about years ago, of another scientist's death in 1953 in vaguely similar circumstances. I had forgotten the fellow's name but
I remembered the incident had something to do with the CIA and the administration of LSD so I used those two terms along with
"fall" and "window" and was able to dig up the details.
In 1953, CIA researcher Frank Olson was administered LSD without his consent by researchers working in the Project MK Ultra
program. Olson became severely depressed and resigned from the CIA. He was later found dead, apparently after falling out of a
motel building through a window, and his death was ruled a suicide. In the 1970s, his family ordered an autopsy and the autopsy
showed that Olson had died from head injury trauma before falling through the window. A CIA agent was found to have been staying
at the same motel in a separate room at the time Olson died. The family sued the US government and received $750,000 in compensation
and an apology from the CIA. https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2018/08/mkultra-conspiracy/
One wonders if Zhang's death had been, ahem, "arranged" according to that template. The description of Zhang from the Stanford
University News website's obituary that B linked to in his post does not sound like a profile of someone who suffered depression
on and off.
This has to be embarrassing as hell to Trump - he should be absolutely furious with Bolton and Pompeo. And all this for violating
sanctions on Iran? I feel like on crazy pills. We live in interesting times.
So, if Bolton sabotaged Trump's efforts to do some sort of deal with China, in whose interest is Bolton working. You'd think that
a trade deal with China would be good for the US. Is Bolton working against US interest.
If we accept the Globalist/Nationalist
framework, then does this not mean that Bolton is helping the nationalists against US interests. And what are the implications
of that.
Trump's rapid departure from Argentina may well have been motivated by receiving the information about the arrest after the well
hyped dinner. If that is the case, Bolton should have been fired on the spot. The lack of any statement about this affair from
Trump is curious. There may be an element of blackmail at play here too, related to Mueller's machinations ahead of the G20. A
malignancy is loose, no doubt.
Thank you for this excellent column. Having read this in context with the comments (especially those by Denk and others) previous
on this topic, I would ask if anyone can provide a time line of US clandestine negative (and sometimes fatal) actions against
high level Chinese engineers and telecoms. Again, the above summary is outstanding.
The terrifying aspect is Bolton, Pompeo - puppets both for shadow power players - have no constraints whatsoever, and obviously
operate without any constraint or regard for our severely (cognitively and emotionally) challenged president, as this report
makes clear.
The timing of this arrest - while Trump and Xi are dining and Sabrina Meng is on her way to the G-20 conference gives a
loud message that Trump is serves at the pleasure of his neocon staff - and son in law, the latter being instrumental in the firing
of Rex Tillerson, the hiring of Bolton, Pompeo and the impending firing of Gen. Kelly.
I can't believe that Trump did not know about the detention of Meng Wanzhou before hand. Trump is a TV actor and he is apprenticing
for a higher spot for himself and family is the elite pecking order.
While we might want to give Trump credit for being who
he is, the elite that fronted him know exactly what his style and penchants are. Trump is a global front for a different approach
to maintaining global hegemony but make no mistake, Trump is not fronting for you nor I
From the perspective of China, their most appropriate response in this complicated situation IMO, should be to accelerate their
gradual reduction of USTs.
All those articles about how China will hurt itself if it gradually sells down USTs are nonsense articles placed into the media
to throw off attention to what is already happening. Russia and Turkey have alrdy done it on a smaller scale, it's a no-brainer
that China can do it also. Why should China finance the US govt to wage war on itself?
If China and other countries gradually stop buying USTs, actual demand will collapse and many other holders will sell or reduce
likewise. Mnuchin is fantasizing when he says there will still be strong demand. Any demand will be from the US Treasury buying
its own USTs, like a dog licking its own rear quarters.
Arresting US business execs by China is a mistake that would be cheered by Bolton and Navarro. The provocation of arresting
Meng is designed by the Trump team to provoke China to arrest US business leaders and thus destroy their direct investment into
China.
The enemy of China is not US businesses but rather the neocon dominated US govt. To impact this group, China needs to cut
off their drug supply(their financing) thru no longer buying their USTs to finance and enable their massive military spending
and financial aggression.
How to do that without crashing the markets n decreasing China's own assets? Sell and reduce USTs gradually. And pretend
u r not doing it. Eventually the lack of buying will force the Fed to raise rates or force the US Treasury to buy its own USTs,
further debasing the US dollar.
In history, all empires fall this way, they keep on printing or taking out the silver content until their currency gets debased
into nothing, and nobody wants it.
Looks like Bolton wants war with China. I recall he was hired during the North Korea talks to add a bit of muscle and now Trump
is stuck with him whether he likes it or not.
Re. Meng....apparently she faces fraud charges related to the Skycom affair. Of course that is just what we're told. Who knows
what kind of pressure she will come under once they get her in the US.
1959, CIA disobeyed Pres Eisenhower's ban on further overflights of USSR until after his summit meeting with Khrushchev. Then
the U-2 was brought down over USSR and the live pilot captured. The US officially denied it happened.
The USSR cancelled the summit meeting.
At first, Eisenhower claimed to have no knowledge of the operation and was outraged when the truth revealed. UN Ambassador
Stevenson made a vehement speech at the UN denying it happened, followed immediately with USSR producing both the plane's wreckage
and its pilot.
Then USSR showed the pilot and wreckage was publicly displayed. Pilot F G Powers had safely bailed-out and was put on-trial
in Moscow, convicted and then allowed to return to the US.
Mission Accomplished! by the unelected leaders of the US [who were certain their man Nixon would be the next President, followed
by quick re-capture of Cuba and then war in Vietnam. Both those operations already directly involved Nixon, who was fully "in"
on The Bay of Pigs and, earlier, plans for US "support" of Saigon leaders in "South" Vietnam with whom he established communications
during his 1953 visit as Ike's new Vice-President.]
...that data on this is more shocking then i realized.. the death of prof zhang - apparent suicide, is bizarre here..
i agree that the usa has been taken over by small minded neo cons that would try to use meng wanzhou as leverage.. the fact
Bolton knew and Trump didn't.. i am not buying that, or Bolton is more manipulative then i realized.. they are all that stupid
though.. i hope Canada doesn't allow this, but under the wuss Justin Trudeau, i am not holding my breath..
@ 12 dh... wanted for ignoring us sanctions on iran from 2009 to 2014... what the fuck has that to do with canada?? is canada
now doing book keeping, and everything else for the usa? the usa can go fuck themselves.. if Canada wasn't a 2 bit vassal state,
that is what we would tell the usa..
Today is Dec.7, a day in 1941 that Pres. Roosevelt aptly called "A Day of Infamy," as the Japanese military attacked Pearl
Harbor.
We now know that the very top echelons of US government first correctly anticipated and then knew precisely when and how the
attack would occur. The 3,000 (+/-) GI's who were sacrificed were considered "acceptable losses." (The 3,000 civilians who were
sacrificed on 9/11 were also considered "acceptable losses.") "Infamy" is an accurate word for US .gov conduct.
(Pls, do not comment to this OT. Wait for the next open thread, if you must.)
Looks like Trump was out of the loop. Trudeau is mainly photo-op material only. This would have been Chrystia Freeland, the
Nazi grand-daughter's file.
In Australia - endless media trumpeting the closed door to Chinese telcos from Australia and New Zealand but one has to go out
of one's way to discover our neighbor Papua New GUINEA has continued using HuaHwei products albeit under U S pressure not to do
so
1/ "... the rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism."
Has Islam, in fact, been in opposition
to imperialism? For the most part, as in India/Pakistan, it has been a very useful imperialist foil against nationalism and socialism.
There have been sincere and effective muslim campaigns against imperialism but equally there have been imperialist financed 'islamic'
campaigns against enemies of the Empire.
2/ Canada's role in this is shocking. It is all of a piece with the surrender to the USA in the Trade negotiations whereby,
inter alia, Canada is not allowed to enter into Trade agreements with 'non-market' economies. The non-market formulation being
code for unapproved by Uncle Sam. No doubt the Nazi Freeland is running this show. In this she is ably seconded by the 'opposition'
Tories and the social fascist NDP which is as enthusiastic for war against China as it is for an attack on the Donbas.
I used to be a member of this, once mildly socialist party. I am proud to say that I was expelled.
Washington has asked Ottawa to arrest Meng Wanzhou and to extradite her. The motive for the war undertaken by Washington against
Huawei is deep-rooted and spurious are the justifications.
The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications.
A number of governments and secret services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei materials,
and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications.
The covers/excuses for this war are theft of intellectual property or in the alternative, trade with Iran and North Korea,
and violating rules of competition by benefitting from national subsidies.
The Five Eyes is a system of electronic espionage by Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
They have begun to exclude Huawei from their auctions.
Those who talk about Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, etc. direct our attention to a shell game. They are all in on the scam.
How better to say it? There is one party: the war party. Trump is a member of TEAM USA. US political maestros dance to the tune
of the Deep State/neolibcon.
Fine distinctions between senior US govt officials make me want to tear my hair out. In US
govt only whistle-blowers are white knights. Everyone else is engaging in good guy/bad guy bullshit and controlled opposition.
With respect to Foreign Policy, how much real difference is there between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? They have all
supported MIC, Israel, and expanding the Empire - aka Job #1.
- Bolton was appointed under pressure from one Sheldon Adelson, who was a (large) donor to the Trump campaign. In that regard,
it was (nearly) impossible for Trump to fire Bolton.
In terms of Frank Olsen, there is a very good six part documentary series on Netflix called "Wormwood". Most important are
the interviews with Olsen's son. His search for the truth took many years (too many years) and he finally uncovered the final
levels of deceit. Worth the time.
@14 ".. wanted for ignoring us sanctions on iran from 2009 to 2014... what the fuck has that to do with canada?? "
Absolutely nothing james. I suspect they are using that charge, rather than getting into 5G backdoor whatever, to make the
extradition process go faster. They don't want it to drag on for years.
Surely it's Bolton who must go. That was an enormous betrayal. The one thing that Trump had going for him was the performance
of the stock market. His neocon enemies in the form of Bolton, managed to strike two blows simultaneously; increase conflict with
China and tank the market.
Too many posters letting Trump off the hook here. He's a brilliant 4D chess master but at the same time he's also a vulnerable
naif who lets neocons, ziofascists and other hostile entities keep hijacking his administration for their own ends? Bit of a problem
there. You can't have it both ways.
Occam's Razor says the Trump administration's foreign policy, possibly with Russia as an exception, is run with the full approval
of Donald John Trump. He's no friend of China, remember, and Steve Bannon's plan to befriend Russia was designed to keep it from
partnering with China against the United States.
It's almost 2019 and like the Obots of 2010 it's time to accept that your man is a busted flush, a fraud, an American exceptionalist
through and through.
The "fraud" charge goes back to 2009/10, and concerns an alleged misrepresentation over the relationship between a company called
SkyComm and Huawei. The alleged sanction violation by SkyComm had nothing to do with Iran's nuclear or military programs, and
may not have even proceeded beyond a negotiation phase. The alleged "fraud", or misrepresentation, rests on a technical interpretation
of complicated interlocking corporate structures. The prosecutors and the defence will likely both be correct in their presentations,
as it is a muddle, but the well has already been poisoned by the now well-publicized accusations that Huawei is a Communist trojan
horse. It's very thin gruel to proceed with such a high profile arrest.
The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications.
A number of governments and secret services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei
materials, and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications.
And not only the governments and secret services, Huawei is widely popular all along EU amongst the common working class user
( which means millions and millions of users....) especially because of its advantageous price and great capabilities.... I myself
own a Huawei device, my friends own Huaweis....Glad to hear that "Five Eyes" can not spy on us....I am very fidel to marks/services
who do not deceive me, but after knowing this new "capability", I am thinking in keeping Huawei as my header mark....Just waiting
for them to launch the laptop "Five Eyes" waterproof and I will be throwing this old one to the trash bin....
@32,36
I wonder how Adelson would react to a Chinese boycott of his casinos in Macau and Singapore? A lot of his wealth has come from
Chinese gamblers. Given Adelson's connections to Bolton and Trump, it would seem like an obvious pressure point.
@38 lili... denk was discussing this on the open thread yesterday.. see his links @68 / 76 and etc
on this page.. no one is discussing
this..
@48 peter au.. it certainly appears that way.. funny thing how trump sold himself on a number of topics, but not that one..
meanwhile, i guess the loot from adelson is quite good... stick with me and you don't need any stickin russian oligarch.. what
is quite amazing is how blind the average amerikkkan is to all this.. they are still stuck on the mueller investigation which
has been running on empty for some time... they would never do an investigation on isreal, or zionists influence on us elections,
as it is too friggin' obvious for anyone looking... better to skip that and continue to serve israel.. thus the constant fixation
with iran..
or russia and china, as the case may be... the top 3 evil countries, according to obama, or was that north korea.. i guess trump
will have to revise it.. the usa is pathetic.. canada is not far behind..
Trump didn't know b/c the NYTimes said so?
I've got this bridge....
China's response may not be immediate, but it will come.
I'm reminded of the sudden death of Vice Adm. Scott Stearney, commander of the Navy's 5th Fleet, Persian Gulf, discovered inside
his home in Bahrain last weekend, a "suspected suicide."
Iran always gets even.
To those of us that understand that all/most of the politicians are working for the same team, it should be easy to see the good
cop/bad cop dynamic being used here.
If b thinks Trump is a good cop, as he presents him here (yes, b has written that he disagrees with all/most of what Trump
does) as do other commenters that post here, I would posit that "they" are being successful in working that meme at this time.
China will not back down and now will play hardball back, but in a globalist sense I expect them to continue to take the high
road as the West mires itself further in the muck of its religion of private finance.
Another commenter mentioned the strategy of China dumping its massive amount of US Treasuries. I think we are getting to that
moment and the response of the US is to default on whomever is holding its debt...............
and then the war we have been in for some time turns serious.
The problem the elite have is making the public have the fervor to slaughter themselves for the purpose of continuing a society
run by and only servicing the elite. I don't understand how they have managed all these centuries but here we are, a bit still
in the dark ages of a thousand years ago.
I think we can assume that the arrest was not an unwelcome surprise for Trump, or he would have reversed it. He knew, and
accepts it. It's total asymmetric war on China. The arrest was on December 1. Trump twitter, Dec 7 China talks are going
very well! here
This is a 100% neocon clusterfuck. It is vital to the success of Trump's Drain The Swamp strategy that The Swampers be given every
opportunity to put their anti-US influence on public display. At least now we know which weirdos are responsible for the US policy
of "Let's do SOMETHING, even it it's stupid."
I've been scouring the 'News' and the www for evidence that China agreed to uphold US sanctions on Iran to an extent that would
invite the US to punish China for disregarding US whims. No luck, so far.
What makes this story entertaining is that the US has not only surrendered its lead in Military Tech, from the Good Old Days,
but Computer and Communications Tech too. You have to be pretty desperate to admit a blunder of that magnitude, albeit obliquely,
as in this case.
Unlikely that few in Trump's cabinet or Senate Foreign Relations committee could even pass the physics section of a college entrance
exam, and have little idea what quantum encryption even is (Chinese published on it first a couple of years ago).
That presumption alone suggests Pompeo Bolton etc are just finger puppets ... which oligarch has all those cia contracts again?
They are in well over their heads. They can't even keep up with the Russians. They will likely get stung by Chinese scorpions
without even knowing what hit them!
Another 'unintended consequence' of the neocon gambit to embarrass Trump by by-passing him, will be renewed interest in something
Vlad said in one of Oliver Stone's Putin's Interviews.
In the context of Vlad's feelings about POTUS Trump, Vlad said words to the effect that it's too soon to say. Everyone knows
that AmeriKKKa has been run by the Permanent Bureaucracy (not the POTUS). A lot of people would have been 'too busy' to watch
the Putin Interviews but World Leaders, everywhere, would not have been among them. So as of December 1, 2018, that cat is well
and truly out of the bag and all eyes, as usual, are on Trump. Again.
CNN: A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22,
it was revealed at the hearing Friday
here . She was arrested on December
1. Meng didn't know about this "issued warrant?" How does this 'system of laws' work, anyhow? Perhaps the warrant issue was classified
secret, for US national security?
Actually, I fear, it's a conspiracy of intel agencies, security advisors and courts to conduct domestic and foreign policy.
It's a non-elected "government" which elected politicians can't touch. For those that doubt it, check out this important interview
with intel whistleblowers Shipp, Binney and Kiriakou which describes Washington corruption is
here . (h/t Carlton Meyer)
Politicians can't touch this secret government lest their security clearances be removed.
@70
In the two-hour interview John Kiriakou points out that the intel agencies have their favorite courts. His delayed case, resurrected
by Obama, was heard by a court in eastern Virginia, which had a 98% conviction rate. They got him for a couple years in prison.
General Petraeus, however, who did much worse, had his case heard in a court in western Virginia, and he got probation. It appears
that the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York is good for anti-China warrants.
D B@70 I read that she was aware of the warrant and avoided traveling to the USA because of it as she had been doing to ?" visit
her son who was in school here"? but likely thought Canada safe. Wrong.
So China seems fearful to me - detaining the head of INTERPOL for instance and re-educating the Uyghurs en mass, plus the heavy
internet censorship. But they cannot disengage from the west economically without risking social upheaval. Nor can the US afford
to disengage from China for roughly the same reason (unlike Russia from whom the US gets rocket engines but little else they cannot
obtain from other sources).
In a few years time (2, or perhaps 3) both Russia and China will have deployed weapons that can deter anything but a full on
nuclear attack, and their military capability will continue to advance. US strategy seems to be to disrupt, slow, and sabotage
both to the extent it is able using economic and political weapons and military posturing. I don't believe it can catch up and
this creates extra danger - the longer it waits the greater the gap will be - economic and military. Many of the responses seem
borderline hysterical to me - not a good thing.
The problem with Iran is (as was with Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and even Syria) that a country with an independent/non-aligned
foreign policy has control of a large quantity of valuable natural resources for which there is a constant and relatively insatiable
demand. If they cannot be controlled they they should be destroyed so they cannot pursue their own agenda and ignore the dictates
of the west. China and Russia are this problem writ large, and they have nukes and a means of delivery to all corners of the globe...
"The game motif is useful as a metaphor for the broader rivalry between nations and
economic systems with the rise of imperialism and the pursuit of world power. This game has
gone through two major transformations since the days of Russian-British rivalry, with the
rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism. The main
themes of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games include:
US imperial strategy as an outgrowth of British imperialism, and its transformation
following the collapse of the Soviet Union;
the significance of the creation of Israel with respect to the imperial
project;
the repositioning of Russia in world politics after the collapse of the Soviet
Union;
the emerging role of China and Iran in Eurasia;
the emerging opposition to the US and NATO.
This work brings these elements together in historical perspective with an understanding
from the Arab/ Muslim world's point of view, as it is the main focus of all the "Great
Games"."
Jay Dyer discusses the book here, its strengths and weaknesses:
Now that the banks are calling in their insurance, the EU has to deliver either by 1)
screwing down Italy the same as they did Greece, or 2) getting the French and German public
(or better the whole EU) to bail out the banks.
There is a third option: the banks simply accept their losses, and the bankers make do
without their customary bonuses for a few quarters.
Though I'm no friend of Michael Moore, he at least was candid about American
"Judeo-Christian" adventures within foreign countries. America needs to pull in its horns,
and stop fooling around with other governments.
Our benighted nation has become a "Global" entity, which entails our young men and women
being used as cannon fodder for Israel's designs, in addition to furthering the campaign by
Globalists to divvy up the world's resources and labor markets .
Our country is blessed with all the necessary raw materials, manufacturing capabilities,
educated and motivated work forces and security to completely support our population, without
the need to obtain staple supplies from foreign countries. Developing alternative energy
sources should be a top priority, to free our people from the yoke of foreign oil cartels --
or the domestic variety, for that matter. Globalism has done little more than implement the
enslavement of populations to mega-corporations, establishing a cabal of non-elected,
inviolable potentates who wield tremendous power over our leaders to do their bidding.
There also has to be some consideration the encounter with the Russians on the Kerch
Strait was contrived by Poroshenko with the assistance of a gaggle of American
neoconservative and Israeli advisers who have been actively engaged with the Ukrainian
government for the past several years. The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own
domestic political reasons but it was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that
surround Trump and proliferate inside the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a
vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.
I came to the exact same conclusion.
Putin wants to normalize relations with the west but, inexplicably, he provokes and
alienates the West just prior to every scheduled meeting with Trump. Of course, that doesn't
make any sense. These events only makes sense if the provocations are coming from agents in
the West who wish to derail any rapprochement between the US and Russia. Then it makes
sense.
If this is true (as it appears to be) one can reasonably predict that any time Trump and
Putin are about to meet, that a Skripal/Ukraine or other Russia-is-evil event will be staged
to derail the meeting.
Let's watch in 2019 and see if this prediction comes true.
If it does, we will know that someone, behind the scenes, is staging these events.
The ongoing campaign to vilify Vladimir Putin & the Russian Federation, is a
complete failure, with conservatives, evangelicals, and republicans.
I'll keep an open mind until Mueller's report is released, but Cohen's connections are
allegedly with the mainly Jewish Russian mob. It is unclear what their agenda may have been,
but Trump has been a lot nicer to Israel than to Russia.
"... Thus, when local news reporters pressed Atty. Dean Andrews (a Marcello atty., according to Waldron) after he was indicted by Garrison for perjury, Andrews initially sought to evade the reporter's questions. Finally he blurted out, "If they can kill the President, they can squash me like a roach." These are but a few of the revelations that were a consequence of Garrison's courage in challenging the Federal Government's narrative about the assassination. ..."
"... At the outset of Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, the Federal Government openly intervened to obstruct. US Attorney General Ramsey Clark announced that the Feds had already investigated Shaw and concluded he had nothing to do with the assassination! When was this investigation? Who investigated? Why did they investigate Shaw? ..."
"... Waldron includes a most salient paragraph: "...declassified files now show that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and CIA Director Richard Helms immediately began a significant public relation counteroffensive, issuing detailed instruction on how to smear critics of the Warren Report. ..."
"... For example, in a January 4, 1967, CIA memo in which the Agency gives 53-pages of specific instructions on how to counter the growing tide of books and articles questioning the `lone-nut' conclusion...In many ways, those PR counteroffensives by the FBI and CIA would last for decades, and some writers make the case that they continue even today."(14-15) ..."
"... Important in the "get Garrison" media campaign was journalist Walter Sheridan. Waldron maintains Sheridan was sent to New Orleans by Robert Kennedy. Why would Robert Kennedy seek to destroy a DA who at least considered charging Carlos Marcello, arch-nemesis of the Kennedys? And was Robert really the dominant figure in the autopsy of his brother at Bethesda, as maintained by Waldron?(399-401) ..."
"... Because Waldron's thesis is that the Mafia had to blur the lines between two plots, an anti-Castro one in league with the CIA, and the one targeting JFK, he might have elaborated more on the CIA practices. ..."
"... Anthony Summers have documented that `nobody has ever made the flimsiest allegation that the authentic Lee Oswald had anything but good to say about John Kennedy' This is true of Oswald's interrogations, his media appearances, and his private talks."(338) ..."
The main objection to the theory that the Mafia planned the assassination of President Kennedy has always been that it would
not have had the power to cover-up its role in the murder. Nor would it have had the ability to control, curtail, and compromise
the autopsy, to bamboozle all the media, to intimidate witnesses speaking to FBI agents, and to appoint a blue-ribbon commission
that would issue a report with 26 volumes of documentary support, purporting to prove that the assassin was a lone-nut, never
once mentioning the Mafia!
Because the Mafia clearly lacked such power, either the Warren Commission was correct in attributing the assassination to Oswald,
or the cover-up and murder, were conducted by higher-ups in the US Government - like Lyndon Johnson, the CIA, the FBI, etc.
Or, it was the work of Fidel Castro and/or the Soviets. Were that the case, the demand by the American public for retaliation
would press our leaders to launch a large-scale invasion of Cuba, which could unleash World War III. To prevent nuclear war,
American leaders chose to cover up the evidence of Communist conspiracy that culminated in Dallas. The American leaders chose
cover-ups and deception in preference to the truth and nuclear war.
Waldron's purpose is to remove the chief obstacles to the view that the Mafia conspiracy resulted in the assassination of Jack
Kennedy. Waldron notes that in the last days of the Eisenhower Administration, CIA and Mafia links were forged in plots to
overthrow and assassinate the radical Fidel Castro in Cuba. With the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion in spring 1961, however,
the newly inaugurated President Kennedy believed he had been misled by the CIA and proceeded to fire its leader, Allen Dulles.
Many Cuban exiles blamed Kennedy for the failure of that mission because Kennedy had refused to support the landing with major
air, and if necessary, American land support.
The Missile Crisis of the fall of 1962 nudged the world to the edge of nuclear war. Though some assumed there had been a "no
invasion" pledge as part of the settlement, Waldron asserts that because Castro rejected inspection on Cuban soil, the no-invasion
pledge was inoperative. Moreover, Kennedy ordered a halt to any American CIA collaboration with the Mafia, in part because
his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy was leading the prosecution of organized crime, and had even used some extra-legal
tactics to deport New Orleans Mafia leader, Carlos Marcello. Nevertheless, Pres. Kennedy still authorized clandestine plots
to kill Castro, while simultaneously allowing top secret negotiations with the Castro regime to come to some accommodation.
But if no progress in those negotiations were evident by the end of November 1963, Pres. Kennedy decided to aid a coup in Cuba
staged by Gen. Juan Almeida, the head of the Cuban army and the number three official under Castro. In this coup, Fidel would
be assassinated, and Almeida's new government would request military intervention from the US to complete the counter-revolution.
The working date for that operation was 1 December 1963.
Unbeknownst to Kennedy and his new CIA leader, John McCone, however, the CIA's Director of Planning Operations, Richard Helms,
now held the highest operational post in the agency. Helms knew of the previous CIA-Mafia collaboration toward eliminating
Castro, and he ignored Kennedy's demand to cut ties with the Mafia. Instead, those earlier ties were retained and solidified
between some CIA operatives and Mafia organizations in Florida (led by Santo Trafficante), Chicago (represented by Johnny Rosselli),
and New Orleans (led by Marcello once he made it back to the US, probably flown in by pilot David Ferrie).
By linking the government approved assassination plots to kill Castro, with its own plots to kill Kennedy, the Mafia would
make it impossible to unravel the truth without exposing the US government's own deadly secrets to the American people, AND
exposing General Almeida in Cuba to the wrath of Fidel. Moreover, if the Mafia plot were successful, it could then plant false
information implicating Castro as the culprit. This might lead to calls for invasion of Cuba, Soviet retaliation, and WWIII.
The US government would then find it necessary to avoid war by covering up what really occurred in Dallas. Thus, the cover-up
was not conducted by the Mafia, but by innocent American leaders bent upon avoiding atomic war: President Lyndon Johnson, Chief
Justice Earl Warren, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, et al.
Waldron uses information garnered from tapes recorded for the FBI when Mafia chief Marcello was imprisoned; he confessed his
role in the Kennedy assassination to a fellow inmate who was wearing a wire. The information was not released when originally
recorded, nor in 1986 when the FBI operation concluded, nor in 1992 when the Congress passed the JFK Assassination Records
Act. In 1998, the FBI released the information, but it was buried in a flood of less important documents released at the same
time. Waldron's own research found the confessions in 2006 and in this book he makes an impressive case. Waldron asserts that
the Mafia planned the assassination with plots in at least three cities that Kennedy would visit in the fall of 1963, and in
each, a Lee Oswald-type patsy had been selected to deflect suspicion from the real killers. Chicago, Tampa-Miami, and Dallas
were the three sites that Kennedy would visit where Mafia hit men were imported to crush Camelot. Waldron also refers to confessions
by other Mafia leaders, including Trafficante, and Rosselli. Waldron is good at reminding readers of how, when Congress reinvestigated
the Kennedy murder, several Mafioso leaders were killed in most brutal fashions the day before they were to testify. In addition,
the wealthy white Russian who befriended the poor, "Marxist" Oswald in Dallas, George de Mohrenschildt, commited suicide the
day before his scheduled testimony. Waldron reminds readers of the number of "coincidental" deaths when Congress reinvestigated
the events in Dallas.
Waldron provided an excellent time-line studded with provocative tidbits of information. Thus, we learn that during the height
of the Missile Crisis in the fall of 1962, Oswald, the "defector" to the USSR married to a Russian, gets a job in Dallas with
a corporation performing sensitive photographic work for the US government, such as interpreting pictures of Cuban missile
movements. (154) Furthermore, despite his "defection" and his later distribution of Fair Play for Cuba leaflets, Oswald was
never placed on the FBI's Security Index.(250, 258) Another item to ponder: Waldron reveals that both Jack Ruby and Gen. Edwin
Walker (the right-wing general whom Oswald allegedly shot at) were closeted homosexuals.(174) Of course, one could argue that
in the 1960s almost all gays were closeted. In that era, if a man were openly homosexual, "out," he was either "in" prison
or "in" a mental institution. Waldron also mentions the story of J. Edgar's alleged arrest for homosexuality.(231) Yet, Clay
Shaw is barely mentioned in the book.
Before engaging in a general critique of the book, I shall point out some minor errors. Louisiana Congressman Hale Boggs,
father of ABC and NPR commentator Cokie Roberts, was a US Representative, not a Senator.(31) Boggs WAS a member of the Warren
Commission, but Louisiana Sen. Russell Long was NOT.(146) Also, Waldron asserts that "there were only two time periods when
Oswald could have worked for Marcello as a runner: one in late April or early May 1963...and the other in late July, August,
and ...September 1963,..."(181-82) But Oswald might have worked for Marcello much earlier, when he was a teenager living in
New Orleans.
I disagree with Waldron's assessment that the investigation by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison hindered the investigation
by mainstream media of the Kennedy assassination.(15) Though the jury quickly found Clay Shaw not guilty of conspiring to kill
JFK, they told local reporters that they were convinced that JFK was a victim of a conspiracy. Garrison's prosecution showed
the Zapruder film in the courtroom, eventually unwrapping it for all to see how Kennedy's head moved to the back and left when
struck by the fatal shot. Under oath Dr. Pierre Finck described how doctors in Bethesda followed military orders at the expense
of providing Kennedy a thorough autopsy. If the national media were hostile to Garrison, not all of the local outlets were
so biased. Thus, when local news reporters pressed Atty. Dean Andrews (a Marcello atty., according to Waldron) after he was
indicted by Garrison for perjury, Andrews initially sought to evade the reporter's questions. Finally he blurted out, "If they
can kill the President, they can squash me like a roach." These are but a few of the revelations that were a consequence of
Garrison's courage in challenging the Federal Government's narrative about the assassination.
At the outset of Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, the Federal Government openly intervened to obstruct. US Attorney General
Ramsey Clark announced that the Feds had already investigated Shaw and concluded he had nothing to do with the assassination!
When was this investigation? Who investigated? Why did they investigate Shaw? The Feds did everything possible to obstruct
the Garrison prosecution, so that crucial witnesses could flee Louisiana, and governors like Ronald Reagan of California and
James Rhodes of Ohio, after consulting with federal officials, simply refused to extradite important witnesses like Gordon
Novel. How could any DA win a case under such circumstances?
Even Waldron concedes, "Recently released FBI files show that in the late spring of 1967, Garrison twice privately considered
indicting Marcello for the assassination of JFK but decided not to."(458) Waldron's thesis is that Marcello was guilty of the
murder, and yet he claims that the only official who contemplated charging Marcello with that crime, simply hindered mainstream
media investigations! Were those recently released FBI files that Waldron refers to intended to facilitate DA Garrison probe?
Or to sabotage it? And had Garrison charged Marcello with killing Kennedy, would the mass media have been any more sympathetic
to Garrison?
Waldron includes a most salient paragraph: "...declassified files now show that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and CIA Director
Richard Helms immediately began a significant public relation counteroffensive, issuing detailed instruction on how to smear
critics of the Warren Report.
For example, in a January 4, 1967, CIA memo in which the Agency gives 53-pages of specific instructions
on how to counter the growing tide of books and articles questioning the `lone-nut' conclusion...In many ways, those PR counteroffensives
by the FBI and CIA would last for decades, and some writers make the case that they continue even today."(14-15)
Garrison failed to convict Clay Shaw. I would contend because of the hostility of the Feds, there is no way Garrison could
have convicted Marcello either. The national, main-stream media followed the marching orders of the federal government - orders
issued softly through their agency operatives and friends.
Important in the "get Garrison" media campaign was journalist Walter Sheridan. Waldron maintains Sheridan was sent to New Orleans
by Robert Kennedy. Why would Robert Kennedy seek to destroy a DA who at least considered charging Carlos Marcello, arch-nemesis
of the Kennedys? And was Robert really the dominant figure in the autopsy of his brother at Bethesda, as maintained by Waldron?(399-401)
Because the thrust of Waldron's book is assassination by the Mafia, he mentions the murder of Guatemalan leader Castillo Armas
in July 1957 by a "lone Communist" assassin, who then killed himself with the same weapon used to kill Armas. But there were
rumors at the time that Armas had run afoul of the Mafia, and Rosselli was then in Guatemala.(94) Shortly after the Bay of
Pigs, the strong man of the Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo was assassinated in what Waldron calls a gangland-type murder.(145)
And since Waldron explicated MafCia assassinations, he might have expanded his all-to-brief accounts of two other assassination,
even if the Mafia had nothing to do with them: - 1) the assassination of the Prime Minister in the newly independent Congo,
Patrice Lumumba on 17 January 1961 (p. 136, though his name is misspelt in Waldron's index); and - 2) the assassination of
South Viet Nam's Ngo Dinh Diem on 2 November 1963.(303) With Waldron's slight treatment of the latter, he evades speculation
on the CIA's role in that murder and its effect on future American policy in Vietnam and any connection between Diem's demise
may have had on events in Dallas. Because Waldron's thesis is that the Mafia had to blur the lines between two plots, an anti-Castro
one in league with the CIA, and the one targeting JFK, he might have elaborated more on the CIA practices.
There are anomalies in Waldron's work. On the one hand, we read that: "The [New Orleans police lieutenant who talked to Oswald
after his arrest with the FPCC in NO] also said that Oswald `liked the President,' a sentiment shared by most people who ever
heard Oswald mention JFK;"(251) and :"...It's important to keep in mind that others such as Anthony Summers have documented
that `nobody has ever made the flimsiest allegation that the authentic Lee Oswald had anything but good to say about John Kennedy'
This is true of Oswald's interrogations, his media appearances, and his private talks."(338)
On the other hand, Waldron also reports that: "The head of the Ku Klux Klan told veteran newspaper report and editor Patsy
Sims that he had met with Oswald in Atlanta. In her definitive history of the Klan, Sims writes that `one of her sources told
her that Oswald, in the summer of 1963, had called on [Klan] Imperial Wizard James Venable in his office in Atlanta seeking
the names of right-wing associates. Venable confirmed [to Sims] that he was fairly sure that Oswald had been there for that
purpose.' Oswald indicated to Venable that he was on his way to Chicago. Klan leader Venable made his statement to Sims in
the 1980s and it is difficult to see why Venable would make up an Oswald encounter since it tended to link Oswald with `right-wing
associates,' thus potentially giving the FBI reason to interview or investigate them."
"In the 1960s, Klan leader Venable was close to an associate of Guy Banister, white supremacist Joseph Milteer, who lived in
Georgia..."(286)
If this meeting did occur, it may have had more to do with the Banister-, Milteer-, far-right plot than about Oswald's personal
opinion of Kennedy. Oswald may have simply been following Banister's instructions, as he had done when pretending to be a Castro-sympathizer
handing out FPCC leaflets.
A related question: what was the connection between the Mafia and the racist, far-right? Clearly, some Cubans who had fled
Castro's far-left oppression in Cuba, may have felt more comfortable with right end of the political spectrum. The KKK certainly
inhabits that end. Milteer, who was taped predicting the assassination prior to events in Dallas, and then gloating about them,
was clearly far-right. So did Milteer, who prediction of, and later gloating over, the assassination was tape-recorded. Moreover,
Milteer declared that the conspiracy to kill Kennedy originated in New Orleans, backed by considerable sums, not all donated
by right-wingers. Milteer mentioned only one Louisiana politician (311), but Waldron does not reveal that name. I will go on
a limb to say that I suspect the politician was the leader of Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish (county), Judge Leander Perez.
In 1952 when Judge Perez decided to endorse the Republican ticket of Eisenhower and Nixon for President, Plaquemines Parish
voted over 93% for the Republicans - the highest percentage of any county in the entire nation.(Glen Jeansonne, Leander Perez:
Boss of the Delta, p. 194) In November 1960 when courts ordered desegregation of two New Orleans schools, Perez urged defiance,
and allowed whites to escape their integrated school by attending schools in neighboring St. Bernard Parish (also Perez=dominated).
In 1961 CORE began its Freedom Rides, where CORE members on buses attempted to integrate bus stations from Washington, DC,
to New Orleans. Most were stopped by brutal mobs or arresting police, and one bus was burnt. This made national and international
headlines. It was rumored (not Jeansonne's biography, but my memory is the source for the rest of this paragraph - HM) that
Perez then induced George Lincoln Rockwell to travel from his base in Virginia through the same route as the Greyhound buses
to New Orleans on his "hate bus." Rockwell was leader of the American Nazi Party. Before entering New Orleans, local police
demanded that he cover some of the signs that decorated his van - "Kill Commies, Queers, and Jews!" When in May 1961 Rockwell
and some of his uniformed crew were arrested for picketing the film "Exodus," there were rumors that Guy Banister, a one-time
Acting Superintendent of the NO Police, paid his bail. When Judge Perez went to the Hotel Roosevelt's Blue Room (possibly the
premier NO night spot at that time), Ted Lewis was performing. One of his signature acts was to sing "Me and My Shadow," while
a Black dancer in black clothing danced as his shadow.
The judge was not happy with this integrated entertainment. Perhaps
he was aware that Ted Lewis had been born, Theodore Friedman. To express his displeasure, the judge purposely broke glasses
where the shadow was to step, causing the Black to cut his foot. In the spring of 1969 Judge Perez passed on. In Plaquemines
Parish, two young Black men entered a store and announced they wanted to purchase liquor to celebrate the death of the Judge.
They were quickly arrested and sentenced to 6 month's hard labor. After serving only a few months, the NAACP succeeded in curtailing
the sentence.
Why would Marcello have a low-level racial extremist like Milteer aware of the plot to kill Kennedy if this were merely a Mafia
operation? Does this make sense?
Let me describe several incidents related to the question I just posed. It is truly amazing how different our relatives can
be from each other and from ourselves. By the late 1950s I had become an integrationist in my native New Orleans. This amounted
to little more than speaking in favor of the idea in high school and then college. That changed in September 1960 when I was
among the seven arrested in the first lunch-counter sit-in in New Orleans. It occurred at the large Woolworth's on Canal and
Rampart Streets. When my father heard of the sit-in in progress, he left work to try to get me away. Police had cordoned off
the counter area, and would not allow anyone to pass. With our arrests, and our names on p. 1 of the local paper and on national
TV (we did not see it as we were still in jail), it was now clear to all that I was a nlover. Although I moved from my parents'
home so as not to endanger them, it did not matter. They received phone calls in the middle of the night, threatening to bomb
the home. Thank God we had no restrictive gun control laws back then. My father easily borrowed a gun and bullets from a co-worker.
After a few months, the spotlight of hatred moved to the other end of the city, for in November Perez and others were instigating
resistance to the court-ordered desegregation of two public schools. I was suddenly old news. My dad felt safe enough to return
the gun. Upon getting it back, his co-worker asked my father, "Why did you borrow so many bullets? Only one would have done
the job." I was not very popular.
But one relative sought to help, - my crazy uncle. Of course, he probably thought of me as his crazy nephew. After my arrest
with CORE for integration, my uncle sought to restore honor to the family, by sending money to George Lincoln Rockwell's organization.
As a young child I once overheard him moaning over some beers, "Oh, if only Hitler had won." My uncle had been in the merchant
marine and had risked his life during WWII to get supplies to the nations fighting against the Axis. But he did not agree with
FDR's foreign policy. Meanwhile, I had been convicted of a felony (the sit-in), and was trying to survive. I certainly was
not seeking another arrest, but I did continue to participate in various demos throughout the 1960s, any one of which might
result in an arrest. Finally, in 1969 my car was followed by a police helicopter, and when I let a passenger out of the auto,
he was immediately arrested. I decided then it was time to leave my native city.
I would occasionally see that uncle when he visited my parents. He had a special greeting for me, "How are the burr heads doing?"
This would rile me a little, but I knew him well enough just to roll my eyes. Sometimes he would speak with my dad, but sometimes
he would address me, "Oh, that Bobby! They're gonna get that Bobby!" He was referring to Atty. Gen Robert Kennedy who seemed
to be pushing integration. I just tried to ignore him.
After a few years, I moved back with my parents and got a job teaching 5th grade in a new, private school. Around lunch one
day, Mrs. Flagg, another 5th grade teacher called me to her class room across the hall. Hers was enjoying a free period for
lunch, and one of her pupils had brought in a new item, a transistor radio. She told me to listen. Most of her class was playing,
making lots of noise, while she and I craned our necks above the 10-year-old and his radio. I heard the main points, but could
not leave my class unattended for long.
When I returned to my class, I informed them that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas. The class cheered. I was stunned.
One girl placed her head on the table and cried. She was the exception. That was November 1963. Sometime after that, probably
early 1964, I again encountered my uncle. "What did I tell you, huh? What did I tell you?" Honestly, I had no idea what he
was talking about. Then he became more explicit, "Didn't I tell you they were going to get him?" Suddenly, shocked, I realized
what he was referring to. Now, I tried a counter. "But you said they were going to get Bobby!" "Well, they got the other one
instead." This time, exasperated, I finally asked, "Who is this `they' you keep talking about?" He quickly responded, "The
mob out in the parish." By the mob, he meant Marcello; by "out in the parish," he meant Jefferson Parish. When he said this,
my parents resided one block from the Airline Highway and the Church with the Neon Bible. We were only a few blocks from Jefferson
Parish and Marcello's office in the Town and Country Motel. My uncle's response simply confirmed my view that my uncle was
crazy. Who in early 1964 was linking Carlos Marcello to the Kennedy assassination? This sounded ever more absurd. When he said
this, I had already earned a BA and an MA from Tulane University. My uncle had finished 5rd grade. I was a scholar. He drove
a taxi. It was easy to dismiss his ravings. But years later I could only wonder, were they really ravings? Or was I too arrogant
to accept information when it was handed to me?
Despite the occasional repetition and lack of footnotes, and a few minor errors, Waldron has written a book that will be difficult
to ignore.
"Presidents, prime ministers, congresspersons and parliamentarians worldwide regularly negate
the democratic will of their nation's voters by refusing to support legitimate election
results. Strangely, their treasonous actions continue without serious reprisal or punishment
by the voter. This emboldens them. The reality of votes cast and "democracy" past does not
does bode well for the people of the United Kingdom, their future as a nation or their
hopeful return to sovereignty once called, "Brexit."
Dynamite opening paragraph by Brett Redmayne-Titley.
It defines the vital issue of -To be or not to be – for our Planet's citizens who
struggle (or aught to), for functioning Democratic Republics founded upon the ideal of
Liberty and Justice for All.
Titley's ending mention of the trials of the Greek nation, and others, is well placed and
a tribute to his worldview, that is key to analyzing the situation in any particular
corner.
"Britains should consider this arbitrary bullying of Italy and of the UK. Then they should
consider the sad EU imposed current condition of Greece. Next, they might dwell on the failed
outcomes of previous elections within the nearby EU nations, and how similar movements were
defeated in their nation as well. Last, they must pay closest of attention to what is
actually in the souls of their own politicians and what they truly support."
In America, we lost our Democratic Republic and our last Constitutional President, John
F. Kennedy , in a hail of bullets in the Coup D'état of November 22, 1963.
The Citizen Yellow Vests in France , supported by their 2 leading Resistance
Fighters, Dieudonné , and Alain Soral , display the next step forward in
the Resistance to Tyranny.
Step 1 – Committees of Correspondence (mainstream media free – websites, &
communications).
2. Step away from the TVs – & breathe the free air outside as the Citizen
Militia Yellow Vests(Minutemen), regain the streets and stretch their muscles.
3. Final Step: We are Joined by free police, military, even CIA & other police agency
employees, in the act of regaining their Countries, with their Sovereignty, and their Honor.
We Restore Our Republics!
a. Zionist imperialist/racists to jail and awaiting Trial.
b. Cleanup & rebuilding.
c. Unbought electoral process - no $ allowed in the process (equal media access for
all candidates), Debates between the candidates. Let a hundred flowers bloom (what democrat
said that?)?
"... Capitalism never was benign, Chrustjow worked as a miner in a commercially exploited mine, where there was little regard for
safety, he abhorred capitalism. ..."
@Bill Jones Interesting to read
how these idealists agree with Christian Gerondeau, 'Le CO2 est bon pour la planete, Climat, la grande manipulation', Paris 2017
Gerondeau explains how many deaths reducing CO2 emissions will cause in poor countries, simply as an example how electricity
for cooking will remain too expensive for them, so cooking is done on smoky fires in confined spaces.
" to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history." " To intentionally impoverish
the world. To what end, I wonder ?
Anyone who knows anything about history is that the rich were always better off than the poor, in fact the very definition
of rich and poor.
In this respect it never mattered if a society was capitalistic, communistic, or a theocracy, as Tibet was.
These idealistic idiots do not understand how they created the problem they now intend to solve with creating an even bigger
problem, their example is the EU, the EU is following this policy for more than twelve years now, since 2005, when the EU grabbed
power through the rejected EU 'consitution'.
Capitalism is no more than deciding between consumption and investment, Robinson Crusoë invested in a fishing net by temporarily
reducing consumption, he did not go fishing, but made a fishing net, expecting that his investment would make it possible to eat
more fish.
Capitalism never was benign, Chrustjow worked as a miner in a commercially exploited mine, where there was little regard
for safety, he abhorred capitalism.
Dutch 17th century capitalistic commerce to the far Indies, east and west, was not benign. Typically a ship left Amsterdam,
near the Schreierstoren, trans 'the tower for the crying', wives, mothers and girl friends, with 300 men aboard, and returned
with 100. Most of those who died were common sailors, captain and officers had a far lower mortality, mainly better food.
Our East Indies commerce also was not much fun for the people in the East, in the Banda Sea Islands massacre some 30.000 people
were killed, for a monopoly on pepper, if I remember correctly.
But, as the earth developed economically, there came room for also poor people getting lives beginning to look as worth living.
Engels in 1844, hope the year is right, described the conditions of working people in GB, this resulted in Das Kapital.
This room for a better life for also the poor was not given by the capitalistic system
In their struggle for a better world for anyone the idealists wanted globalisation, level playing field, anyone should be welcome
anywhere, slogans like this.
Globaliation, however, is the end of the nation state, the very institution in which it was possible to provide a better life.
Anyone following me until here now can see the dilemma, the end of the nation state was also the end of protection by that state
against unbridled capitalism.
As the idealists cannot give up their globalisation religion they must, as those who cannot give up the biblical creation story,
find an ideological way out of their dilemma. My conclusion now is 'in order to save our globalisation religion we try to destroy
economic growth, by making energy very expensive, in the hope of destroying capitalism'.
Alas, better, luckily, capitalism cannot be destroyed, those who invented the first furnaces for more or less mass producing
iron, they were capitalists. They saw clearly how cheap iron would bring economic growth, the plow.
In the country where the CO2 madness has struck most, my country, the Netherlands, the realisation of the poverty that drastically
reducing CO2 emissions will cause, has begun. If there really is madness, I wonder.
I indeed see madness, green leftists unable to make a simple multipiclation calculations about costs, but maybe mainly political
opportunism. Our dictator, Rutte, is now so hated that he needs a job outside the Netherlands, in order to qualify, either at
Brussels or in New York, with the UN, has to howl with the wolves.
At the same time, we have a gas production problem,, earthquakes in the NE, houses damaged, never any decision made to solve
the problem, either stop gas production, or strenghten the houses, both expensive solutions.
So, in my suspicious ideas, Rutte now tries to improve himself, at the same time solving a problem: within, say ten years,
the Netherlands functions without gas, and remains prosperous; the idea he tries to sell to us. In a few years time it will emerge
that we cannot have both, prosperous, and zero emission, but the time horizon for a politician is said to be five years.
Israel is one undeniably large factor behind spending surges since 2005. Israel successfully
demanded enormous increases in joint U.S.-Israeli cyber warfare expenditures and benefited
from related U.S. contingency planning. Due to onerous secrecy, Americans remain unable to
engage in informed public debate about whether what amounts to US subjugation to the Israeli
prerogatives driving these massive expenditures should continue.
The US increased spending on the National Intelligence Program by 9 percent in fiscal year
2018 to $59.4 billion. The Military Intelligence Program surged 20 percent to $22.1 billion.
NIP plus MIP beat the year 2005 expenditure record totaling $81.5 billion for fiscal year
2018.
The development of secret offensive cyber warfare programs targeting Iran are included in
MIP and NIP budgets. According to the 2016 documentary Zero Days by director Alex Gibney,
Israel's incessant public threats to attack Iran coupled with intense secret demands for
cyber warfare targeting Iran were the catalyst for massive new US black budget spending.
Former NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009) Michael Hayden claimed in
Zero Days that the goal of any Israeli air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be
to drag the United States into war.
by Grant Smith Posted on November 07, 2018 He is director of the Institute for Research:
Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, D.C.
There is very little spoken of the foreign threat of the Chabad network. It must be serious
opposition if even the CFR "globalists" write about it. ( https://www.theglobalist.com/donald-trump-benjamin-netanyahu-democracy-corruption/
) When I say threat, I mean global nuclear war, mass starvation, and disease. Chabad is the
link binding Trump and Putin advisors. Do you think anyone belonging in this protected
"religion" holds any sort of good will for the regular common folk inhabiting the world?
What chance does peace have with these people having Trump's ear: Javanka Kushner, Gina
Haspel, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mad Dog Mattis, and John Bolton?
Doesn't look good does it!
West Point says NO to Peace!
The warmongering bastard and West Point grad (first in class) -- Pompeo -- says NO peace
for Yemeni! Trump says wars are for Israel.
West Point is Jew occupied territory. All US Army generals are pro Israel.
US to keep aiding Saudis in Yemen despite furor: Pompeo
Buenos Aires (AFP) -- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed Saturday that the United
States would continue suppor ting Saudi Arabia's military campaign in Yemen, despite
rising outrage over the kingdom.
Speaking from a Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires, Pompeo acknowledged that the
humanitarian crisis in Yemen -- where millions are at risk of starvation -- had reached
"epic proportions" but said Washington and Riyadh were offering aid.
"The program that we're involved in today we intend to continue," Pompeo told CNN when
asked about military assistance to the Saudi-led coalition.
I suspect not, but they answer to politicians. Ditto the CIA.
I suspect not also -- but only privately and in secret, would they be anti-Israel. If they
keep their mouth shut, they will have a six figure job waiting for them in the J-MIC. Hmm --
so much for the flag. Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art
"The AIPAC Starship strikes back, and excluded Senator Rand Paul from meeting with Gina
Haspel on the Kashoggi murder."
Could it not be more clear that Mossad runs our government? Didn't the military swear
oaths to protect the US from enemies foreign AND domestic? Oh, and I've given up on Trump.
He's an Israel-worshiping ineffective
What foreign threats indeed. Out biggest threats come from our own government:
"The new version clarifies that people cannot face jail time for participating in a
boycott, but the ACLU has argued that it still leaves the door open for criminal financial
penalties."
But yet these clowns will do next to nothing to stop illegal seizures of white farms in
South Africa. Our treasonous government busy working to strip away our freedoms. Don't think
they won't use this precedent to outlaw other types of "hate speech." And brought to you by
the republican party.
@anon As AIPAC and
WINEP demanded in 2003, the office as initially led by Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart
Levey, who worked in unusually close coordination with the Israeli government. Levey's
Harvard thesis (PDF) was about how Israel lobbying organizations could become more effective
by staying beneath the radar of public scrutiny and distancing themselves from the notoriety
generated by the illicit activities of such ideological fellow travelers as the Jewish
Defense League.
https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2018/08/29/treasury-sanctions-foreigners-for-israel
A few years ago, I had the temerity to write to David McCullough, the biographer of Harry
Truman, to tell him I thought he was wrong about an aspect of Truman's character.
McCullough was nice enough to write back. He said he thought Truman had not been malicious
but had simply lacked understanding, and in a revealing remark, he acknowledged that Truman
"just didn't know enough about [the Palestinians] and their situation" -- which he said,
quite accurately, is still true of most Americans. "The great shame," he wrote, "is that a
reasonable discussion of the subject remains so difficult to achieve in any public way."
Which brings me to my point: Reasonable discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,
and particularly of the Palestinian perspective, has always been "so difficult to achieve in
any public way," and since the days of Woodrow Wilson .
From the article: Tuesday's briefing on Khashoggi's killing was limited to a
small group of lawmakers, including those of the Senate's Armed Services Committee,
Intelligence Committee, and Foreign Relations Committee.
Chuck,
These oversite committees are a joke!
Those committees are cheer leaders for those agencies. Those senators are hand picked to
support the Jew Security State.
We can be sure that they work to hide what those agencies are doing from We the
People.
"... The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now). ..."
"... Ukrainian and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it. ..."
Short overview as it looks from my current perch: Piggy Poro will go down in history , way
down, that's for sure.
1. The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer
operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now).
If the Trump-Putin meeting a G20 falls
through, it would not necessarily be a definitive signal; if it does not fall through, that
would be a definitive signal. Yes, MI-6 and the US cohorts are anxious about the
"declassification" of FISA and other documents, both because of Russiagate as well as the
definitive disenfranchisment it entails. That makes the timing of Piggy's Kerch fiasco
important.
2. At the moment, the European or NATO response is not what the British or CIA expected or
wanted.
a. Yesterday Ursula von der Leyen, German Defense Minster, spoke at a security conference
covered by Sputnik (German): "Russia has Europe in check" was the headline, "check" as in
chess, which in a chess game sometimes means not just a single check, but chasing the
opponent with "checks" over the board until finally declaring "checkmate."
b.
https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/jack-laurenson-in-this-dark-hour-where-are-ukraines-allies.html?cn-reloaded=1
In this dark hour, where are Ukraine's allies?, "The Kremlin wants to know how much it can
get away with. If the response so far, in the last day or so, is a measure of that, then
Moscow will likely feel emboldened to push even further. There is still time for NATO and the
West to respond, but the question on everyone's lips is how and whether the political will
and strength to do so exists." The end: "At Ukrainian Week in London this October, Ukrainian
and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety
and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's
time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it.
c. https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-russia-putin-is-in-control/
'Putin is in control' Europe stands by as Russian president goes after Ukraine. "BERLIN --
Chalk another one up for Vlad." "To be perfectly honest, we don't have many options," a
senior European official said. "We don't want to risk war, but Putin is already waging one.
That makes us look weak." Given Europe's dearth of options, its leaders revert to hackneyed
pronouncements about the importance of dialogue and, as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
put it, "de-escalation on both sides."
d. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/27/ukraines-new-front-is-europes-big-challenge/
Ukraine's New Front Is Europe's Big Challenge -- There's plenty Europe should do to push back
against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine.
There's plenty Europe should do to push back against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine. By
Carl Bildt, Nicu Popescu. -- Juicy nonsense galore, a plea sent into the winds.
f. https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/why-is-the-sea-of-azov-so-important
-- Atlantidc Council -- Stephen Blank -- Why Is the Sea of Azov So Important? "Moreover, even
a casual examination of Russian actions reveals the deep and continuing parallels with
China's equally illegitimate actions in the South and East China Sea. In the Asian case, the
United States has mounted and continues to stage numerous Freedom of Navigation Operations to
demonstrate to China that it will uphold the time-honored principle of the freedom of the
seas. This principle is no less at stake in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Ideally, NATO,
at Kyiv's invitation, should send a fleet to Mariupol to shatter the pretense of Russian
sovereignty and show Putin that the invasion of Ukraine has brought NATO into Ukraine. This
is precisely the outcome Russia aimed to avert."
And that is what, at the moment, "NATO" of "the Europeans" apparently do not want. Send a
fleet to Mariupol? -- Ask the Germans: they have a few speed boats that might not get
stuck.
Poroshenko seems to be on the way to demonstrating that NATO is irrelevant.
"... It's the intense indoctrination of Anglos since 1945 along the lines that Nationalism is bad and Racial Identity is bad. Hence the frantic virtue signaling of open frontiers and multiculturalism among the educated (indoctrinated). ..."
"... It will eventually be resolved by the people who don't care (the working class), who will toss out their elite and their "educated" middle class collaborators – in fact it's already happening with Brexit – check out the Daily Mail comments section. ..."
One fatal flaw of WASPs on both sides of the pond is that the upper crust ones don't seem
to have much empathy for the less fortunate of their own kind.
It's the intense indoctrination of Anglos since 1945 along the lines that Nationalism is bad
and Racial Identity is bad. Hence the frantic virtue signaling of open frontiers and
multiculturalism among the educated (indoctrinated).
For example, it's still completely unacceptable in middle class British society to support
Nationalism (you're a Nazi) or Anglo racial identity (other races are welcome to their
identities – but if you're and Anglo you're a racist).
It will eventually be resolved by the people who don't care (the working class), who will
toss out their elite and their "educated" middle class collaborators – in fact it's
already happening with Brexit – check out the Daily Mail comments section.
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This
article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals
(even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax
havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's
estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that
off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages
because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes
(even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions
by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems.
MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much
desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked
against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that
struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread
communist. Hopeless ideas!
@niceland
Your friends are not "right wing". The left/right paradigm is long dead. Your friends are
globalists, whether they realize it or not. Globalism is about moving capital to the benefit
of the haves. Migrants/immigrants are a form of capital. Investing in migration/immigration
lowers the long term costs and increases long term profit. The profit (money capital) is then
moved to a place where it best serves its owner.
In the United States
today, and throughout "Western Brainwashed Civilization," only a handful of people exist who
are capable of differentiating the real from the created reality in which all explanations are
controlled and kept as far away from the truth as possible.
Everything that every Western government and "news" organization says is a lie to control
the explanations that we are fed in order to keep us locked in The Matrix.
The ability to control people's understandings is so extraordinary that, despite massive
evidence to the contrary, Americans believe that Oswald, acting alone, was the best shot in
human history and using magic bullets killed President John F. Kenndy; that a handful of Saudi
Arabians who demonstratively could not fly airplanes outwitted the American national security
state and brought down 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers and part of the Pentagon; that Saddam
Hussein had and was going to use on the US "weapons of mass destruction;" that Assad "used
chemical weapons" against "his own people;" that Libya's Gaddifi gave his soldiers Viagra so
they could better rape Libyan women; that Russia "invaded Ukraine;" that Trump and Putin stole
the presidential election from Hillary.
The construction of a make-believe reality guarantees the US military/security complex's
annual budget of $1,000 billion dollars of taxpayers' money even as Congress debates cutting
Social Security in order to divert more largess to the pockets of the corrupt military/security
complex.
Readers ask me what they can do about it. Nothing, except revolt and cleanse the system,
precisely as Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said.
"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of
by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet
melted."
"... The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.) ..."
"... Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either. ..."
"... American Jewish Committee ..."
"... Contemporary Jewish Record ..."
"... If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying . And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren ..."
"... Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech. ..."
"... believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds. ..."
"... nations derive their strength from their myths , which are necessary for government and governance. ..."
"... national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate . ..."
"... to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil ; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation. ..."
"... deception is the norm in political life ..."
"... Office of Special Plans ..."
"... The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy. ..."
"... the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you) ..."
"... the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another) ..."
"... General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran". ..."
"... Among them are brilliant strategists ..."
"... They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others. ..."
"... They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy ..."
"... They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government. ..."
Mememonkey pointed my to a 2013 essay by Laurent Guyenot, a French historian and writer on the
deep state, that addresses the question of
"Who Are The Neoconservatives."
If you would like to know about that group that sends the US military into battle and tortures prisoners
of war in out name, you need to know about these guys.
First, if you are Jewish, or are a GREEN Meme, please stop and take a deep breath. Please put
on your thinking cap and don't react. We are NOT disrespecting a religion, spiritual practice or
a culture. We are talking about a radical and very destructive group hidden within a culture
and using that culture. Christianity has similar groups and movements--the Crusades, the
KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.
My personal investment: This question has been a subject of intense interest for me since I became
convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Iraq war was waged for reasons entirely different
from those publically stated. I have been horrified to see such a shadowy, powerful group operating
from a profoundly "pre-moral" developmental level-i.e., not based in even the most
rudimentary principles of morality foundational to civilization.
Who the hell are these people?!
Goyenot's main points (with a touch of personal editorializing):
1. The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power.
Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.)
Neoconservativism is essentially a modern right wing Jewish version of Machiavelli's political
strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism as a religious
tradition, but rather Judiasm as a political project, i.e. Zionism, by Machiavellian
means.
This is not a religious movement though it may use religions words and vocabulary. It
is a political and military movement. They are not concerned with being close to God. This is a movement
to expand political and military power. Some are Christian and Mormon, culturally.
Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable
label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives
do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together
either.
He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet
level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military. In private
writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually Israel's
war goals. (Examples provided.)
2. Most American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and do NOT share the perspective of the radical
Zionists.
The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative")
Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of
the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee,
which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest
American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: "If there
is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism
is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find
horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born
among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants'
grandchildren".
3. Intellectual Basis and Moral developmental level
Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest
on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great
admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely
effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his
thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.
Other major points:
believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved
for superior minds.
nations derive their strength from their myths, which are necessary for
government and governance.
national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality:
they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate.
to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between
good and evil; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation.
As recognized by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt in an article "Leo Strauss and the World
of Intelligence" (1999), for Strauss, "deception is the norm in political life" –
the rule they [the Neocons] applied to fabricating the lie of weapons of mass destruction
by Saddam Hussein when working inside the Office of Special Plans.
George Bushes speech from the national cathedral after 9/11 exemplifies myth-making at its
finest: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world
of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful,
but fierce when stirred to anger. . . .[W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant
us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country. God
bless America.
4. The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the
Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy.
the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you)
the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another)
the second coming of Christ myth
the establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth through global destruction/war (nuclear war for
the Glory of God)
[The]Pax Judaica will come only when "all the nations shall flow" to the Jerusalem
temple, from where "shall go forth the law" (Isaiah 2:1-3). This vision of a new world
order with Jerusalem at its center resonates within the Likudnik and neoconservative
circles. At the Jerusalem Summit, held from October 12th to 14th, 2003 in the symbolically significant
King David Hotel, an alliance was forged between Zionist Jews and Evangelical Christians around
a "theopolitical" project, one that would consider Israel "the key to the harmony of civilizations",
replacing the United Nations that's become a "a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third
World dictatorships": "Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance endows it
with a special authority to become a center of world's unity. [...] We believe
that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make
it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace
and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets". Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit,
including Benjamin Netanyahu, and Richard Perle.
Jerusalem's dream empire is expected to come through the nightmare of world war. The prophet
Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums, predicted that the Lord will fight "all nations" allied
against Israel. In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the exception
of Jerusalem, who "shall remain aloft upon its site" (14:10).
With more than 50 millions members, Christians United for Israel is
a major political force in the U.S.. Its Chairman, pastor John Haggee, declared: "The United States
must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both
Israel and the West, [...] a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will
lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ".
And Guyenot concludes:
Is it possible that this biblical dream, mixed with the neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and
the militarism of Likud, is what is quietly animating an exceptionally determined and organized ultra-Zionist
clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month
after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists
"that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran".
Is it just a coincidence that the "seven nations" doomed to be destroyed by Israel form part of
the biblical myths? [W]hen Yahweh will deliver Israel "seven nations greater and mightier than yourself
[ ] you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."
My summary:
We have a group that wishes greatly expanded power (to rule the world??)
Among them are brilliant strategists
They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is
founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others.
They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy
This is not a spiritual movement in any sense
They are utilizing religious myths and language to influence public thinking
They envision "winning" in the aftermath world war.
They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government.
Armed conflict between the US and Iran is becoming more probable by the day as super-hawks
replace hawks in the Trump administration. The new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, has
called for the US to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 and advocated immediate regime
change in Tehran. The new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has said the agreement, which Trump
may withdraw from on 12 May, is "a disaster". Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu that he will not accept a deal with "cosmetic changes" as advocated by European
states, according to Israeli reporters. If this is so, then the deal is effectively dead.
... ... ...
The new line-up in Washington is being described as "a war cabinet" and it may turn out to
be just that. But looking at ignorant, arrogant men like Bolton and Pompeo, it is difficult to
avoid the feeling that it will all end in disaster.
"... Everything Flynn had to say implicated Obama, Clapper & Brennan but the corrupt cabal isn't subject to the laws of unwashed inbreds like you and I and the other 320 million Americans (including those who THINK they're part of the club because they virtue signal so well). ..."
You realize 2 years of Flynn under Mueller's microscope yielded nothing? And the fact he's
facing sentencing means he's not going to be called as a witness to anything.
Everything Flynn had to say implicated Obama, Clapper & Brennan but the corrupt cabal
isn't subject to the laws of unwashed inbreds like you and I and the other 320 million
Americans (including those who THINK they're part of the club because they virtue signal so
well).
Says Summer Sausage who was of course not in the room. You think you know stuff? You know
stuff from the koolaide you've swallowed for the past 20 years...
"... This shtick of blaming US state crimes on foreign influence is getting annoying. You know none of this would be happening if the DO didn't like it. If you want to stop CIA's common plan or conspiracy for war, you've got to end the impunity that permits it. Ratify the Rome Statute. With the judiciary completely gelded, that's the only way to get the CIA regime under control. It's that or DCI Poppy Hager swings at Nuremberg II. ..."
"... Nuland admitted to spending $5 billion to set Maidan up. That $5B is worth 10 times that much in Ukraine. You don't spend that kind of money unless you have a follow up plan, and NATOizing Ukraine to attack Russia was it. The trigger was NATO's bitch, the EU, creating such a horrible deal for Ukraine that only an imbecile would have accepted it. Viktor Yanukovych was no imbecile. The "Russian deal" wasn't all that great for Ukraine either, it was just infinitely better than the turd the EU told Yanukovych to sign. ..."
One of the local Washington television stations was doing a typical early morning honoring
our soldiers schtick just before Thanksgiving. In it soldiers stationed far from home were
treated to videolinks so they could talk to their families and everyone could nod happily and
wish themselves a wonderful holiday. Not really listening, I became interested when I half
heard that the soldier being interviewed was spending his Thanksgiving in Ukraine.
It occurred to me that the soldier just might have committed a security faux pas by
revealing where he was, but I also recalled that there have been joint military maneuvers as
well as some kind of training mission going on in the country, teaching the Ukrainian Army how
to use the shiny new sophisticated weapons that the United States was providing it with to
defend against "Russian aggression."
Ukraine is only one part of the world where the Trump Administration has expanded the
mission of democracy promotion, only in Kiev the reality is more like faux democracy
promotion since Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is clearly exploiting
a situation that he himself provoked . He envisions setting himself up as a victim of
Moscow to aid in his attempts to establish his own power through a security relationship with
Washington. That in turn will help his bid for reelection in March 2019 elections, in which his
poll numbers are currently running embarrassingly low largely due to the widescale corruption
in his government. Poroshenko has already done much to silence the press in his county while
the developing crisis with Russia has enabled him to declare martial law in the eastern parts
of the country where he is most poorly regarded. If it all works out, he hopes to win the
election and subsequently, it is widely believed, he will move to expand his own executive
authority.
There also has to be some consideration the encounter with the Russians on the Kerch Strait
was contrived by Poroshenko with the assistance of a gaggle of American neoconservative and
Israeli advisers who have been actively engaged with the Ukrainian government for the past
several years. The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it
was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside
the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir
Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.
The defection of Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, together with the assumption that a lot of
anti-Trump dirt will be spilled soon, means that the American president had to be even more
cautious than ever in any dealings with Moscow and all he needed was a nod of approval from
National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to cancel the
encounter. A heads-of-state meeting might not have solved anything but it certainly would be
better than the current drift towards a new cold war. If the United States has only one vitally
important relationship anywhere it is with Russia as the two countries are ready, able and
apparently willing to destroy the world under the aegis of self-defense.
Given the anti-Russian hysteria prevailing in the U.S. and the ability of the neocons to
switch on the media, it should come as no surprise that the Russian-Ukrainian incident
immediately generated calls from the press and politicians for the White House to get tough
with the Kremlin. It is important to note that the United States has no actual national
interest in getting involved in a war between Russia and Ukraine if that should come about. The
two Eastern European countries are neighbors and have a long history of both friendship and
hostility but the only thing clear about the conflict is that it is up to them to sort things
out and no amount of sanctions and jawing by concerned congressmen will change that fact.
Other Eastern European nations that similarly have problems with Russia should also be
considered provocateurs as they seek to create tension to bind the United States more closely
to them through the NATO alliance. The reality is that today's Russian Federation is not the
Soviet Union and it neither aspires to nor can afford hegemony over its former allies. What it
has made very clear that it does want is a modus vivendi where Russia itself is not
being threatened by the West.
Recent
military maneuvers in Poland and Lithuania and the stationing of new missiles in Eastern
Europe do indeed pose a genuine threat to Moscow as it places NATO forces on top of Russia's
border. When Russia reacts to incursions by NATO warships and planes right along its borders,
it is accused of acting aggressively. One wonders how the U.S. government would respond if a
Russian aircraft carrier were to take up position off the eastern seaboard and were to begin
staging reconnaissance flights. Or if the Russian army were to begin military exercises with
the Cubans? Does anyone today remember the Bay of Pigs?
Crying wolf provides a perfect pretext for the Empire's MIC to line the pockets of the
merchants of death. In keeping with its time-honored tradition of propping up tyrants
kowtowing to imperial hegemonic wishes, America hardly has friends without some military
collaboration. Even the recently anointed sh*thole countries of Africa over 50 such countries
have American military cooperation agreements under the guise of the infamous AFRICOM and the
War on Terror. The number of military bases in sh*thole African countries remain unknown.
..the ability of the neocons to switch on the media
Hard to distinguish between the two really. The "free press" of WMD notoriety, Ghaddafi's
"genocidal drive" against Libyan citizens, Iraq's involvement with 9/11? Iranian arms in
Yemen that have not massacred children in school buses? Iranian fabricated nuclear weapons?
Syrian chemical attacks?
The biggest threats to America come from its "friends"
America is being unwittingly exonerated as an innocent bystander unable to choose her own
friends. It so happens America's "friends" share the common trait of pushing for war. In
countries awash in petrodollars, purchasing billions of dollars in arms used in Yemen to
murder children; Zionists are gifted with American state of the art arsenals to murder
Palestinians, including women and children. The biggest threat to America comes from inside
the deep state itself, especially with the Zionist Israel Firsters pulling strings at
will.
I agree with Phil Giraldi on its analysis of US foreign policy. When lying with dogs, you get
fleas. This saying holds especially true for the so-called US friends such as the Saudis,
Israelis, Ukrainians, Poles, and the Brits. The NeoZion gang plays President Trump is an open
secret. He still employes one of its guiding spirits as national security adviser. As long
this Gordian knot is not cut, American foreign policy will not change, and it's getting
worse. These folks who surround Trump want war, first with Iran and then with Russia. Their
lackey Poroshenko is doing the bitting of Trump and the Zionist regime and their European
puppets. The Zionist regime is deeply involved in steering up tensions. Prime minister
Wolodymyr Hrojsman is Jewish. Is anyone surprised?
What chance does peace have with these people having Trump's ear: Javanka Kushner, Gina
Haspel, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mad Dog Mattis, and John Bolton?
Around 1890 one Rothschild wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.
In my opinion at present the only enemy of the USA is the USA, that part of the USA that
failed in getting Hillary elected.
On the European continent a similar situation, even an establishment Dutch politician, of a
christian party, Segers, found out that a substantial part of the Dutch see the government as
the enemy.
He has the illusion that pr can save him, and his cronies.
He never understood. That was evident the moment he started floating names like Romney for
his cabinet. Personally, I sympathize with Trump after what the deep state has done to him
and his family, and I even respect the guy for telling things like they are – the poor
autistic bastard just can't help but blurt out the truth about things* but he's also not the
guy we needed. We needed a fearless, ruthless, and cunning fighter ready to martyr himself
for our interests, the people's interests.
*Global Warming IS a scam – the Paris Accords would not decrease CO2 levels even
under perfect – near miraculous – circumstances and is merely being floated by
the Chinese so they can give off the appearance of doing something while doing nothing, as
they have done before.
The EU IS a vehicle for Germany.
Hatti IS a shit hole, it's just that non-autistic people have the good sense not to say
that out loud.
Trudeau DOES have a fake eyebrow.
Hillary DOES wear a wig, or at least hair extensions on occasion.
China IS screwing us over economically.
Mexico isn't sending us their best, they are dumping their poverty problem onto us.
NATO doesn't have a purpose.
We shouldn't go to war with N. Korea.
We shouldn't destroy Syria but destroy ISIS.
John Brennan and the FBI really did run a deep state coup plot against him during the
campaign and first 100 days.
Russia isn't a big deal unless we make them a big deal.
@jilles dykstra 'One
of many truths lost within this discourse is the reality that the creation of a no-fly zone
would, in the words of the most senior general in the US Armed Forces, mean the US going to
war "against Syria and Russia". '
For a peek into Establishment orthodoxy, check out "Why Does America Spend So Much on
Israel?" on Beltway Conservatism's Cartoon Network, aka the PragerU Channel. I've recently
started auditing classes there via the Videos page here at The Unz Review.
Beyond parody, a pensioned warrior narrates over 3rd grade graphics, telling most
Americans all they care to know about what he calls "Izrul." Perhaps Mr. Giraldi could,
despite the apparent taboo, leave a comment and get some discussion going with the Team Red
NPCs -- it hasn't worked for me.
@Art I've wondered
why we are the way we are. Then I came across this, and I understood:
D.H. Lawrence
"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of
by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet
melted."
This shtick of blaming US state crimes on foreign influence is getting annoying. You know
none of this would be happening if the DO didn't like it. If you want to stop CIA's common
plan or conspiracy for war, you've got to end the impunity that permits it. Ratify the Rome
Statute. With the judiciary completely gelded, that's the only way to get the CIA regime
under control. It's that or DCI Poppy Hager swings at Nuremberg II.
"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a
sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has
never yet melted."
The leading sponsors of terror in the world are Israel and the Zionist controlled U.S. and
Britain and NATO and their terrorist mercenaries ISIS aka AL CIADA and all of the various off
shoots that have been seeded throughout the world by the satanic Zionists.
The Zionists have a long historical experience with bringing terror to the world , one
example being the Zionist/ Bolshevik revolution in Russia where the Bolsheviks killed some 60
million Russians bringing terror to Russia on an industrial level turning the whole country
into a slaughter house!
The Zionist attack on the WTC is but another example of Zionist terrorism, where in one
fell swoop the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and got away with it and every thinking
American knows that the Zionists did it!
The greatest terrorist kabal in the world is Zionism and these terrorists have control of
every facet of the U.S. government and at some point are going to provoke a war with Russia
that will get the whole world blown to hell and in fact this is what the Zionists want as
they believe they will survive in their DUMBS akd Deep Underground Military Bases which they
have in the U.S. and Israel and Britain, but they care not for the rest of humanity, that is
terrorism in spades!
The enemy is not at the gates , the enemy is in control of the U.S. government and is
going to be the destruction of America!
You can't really pin Ukraine on Trump. Maidan was not spontaneous.
Nuland admitted to spending $5 billion to set Maidan up. That $5B is worth 10 times that
much in Ukraine. You don't spend that kind of money unless you have a follow up plan, and
NATOizing Ukraine to attack Russia was it. The trigger was NATO's bitch, the EU, creating
such a horrible deal for Ukraine that only an imbecile would have accepted it. Viktor
Yanukovych was no imbecile. The "Russian deal" wasn't all that great for Ukraine either, it
was just infinitely better than the turd the EU told Yanukovych to sign.
The real story on Russia is this: the same people that own every "Western liberal
democracy" owned the USSR. The Russians got rid of them, and the USSR collapsed. A new
invasion was hatched under the guise of "Westernizing" Russia. When the Russians saw that
Yeltsin was suckered, and it was the same game, run by the same people, they got a new
sheriff. That sheriff started to sort things out, while the owners fled to the UK and Israel.
The lives of Russians got better, as the owners are gradually being stripped of their power.
The long and short of it, our owners want their ownership of Russia restored.
All wars are economic wars. Capitalism and communism are the two sides of the same coin.
Both seek to concentrate ownership, just in different ways using different scams.
The reason why Trump supports the Ukraine is easy.
"According to the European Jewish Congress, as of 2014, there are 360,000–400,000
Jews in Ukraine."
And there you have it. Wherever or whatever the interest of Jewry there will be the United States standing tall
behind it. Let's just say the Ukraine is guaranteed to stay poor. While the Jews get rich!
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is clearly exploiting a situation that he himself
provoked. He envisions setting himself up as a victim of Moscow to aid in his attempts to
establish his own power through a security relationship with Washington. That in turn will
help his bid for reelection in March 2019 elections
Nah, Porky needs a war to avoid an election which he would undoubtedly lose.
There's no use having an empire if you can't exact an economic advantage. Ultimately, most of
the events unfolding today are about keeping the loot flowing to lower Manhattan and central
London.
Teenagers who get in trouble often have to ditch their bad friends to turn their lives
around. There is still a chance for the United States if we keep our distance from the bad
friends
It's hard to do if you are in fact the worst of those bad friends.
friends who have been convincing us to make poor choices.
The poor choices had been made long before these friends even appeared on the scene. In
fact, many of these friends owe their very existence and/or influence to the poor choices the
US had made. It's so disingenuous to blame the US politics on someone's influence when the
reality is exactly the opposite.
If the US were in normal country prepared to behave in a sensible way it would've picked
much better partners. But the thing is the US isn't a normal country; it doesn't want
partners – in wants vassals, so it is naturally limited in its choice of friends.
September 17, 2014 US Pursues 134 Wars Around the World
The US is now involved in 134 wars or none, depending on your definition of war The White
House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word "war" was the right one to
describe its military actions against the Islamic State. US Secretary of State John Kerry was
at first reluctant: "We're engaged in a major counterterrorism operation," he told CBS News
on Sept. 11. "I think war is the wrong terminology and analogy but the fact is that we are
engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity I don't think people
need to get into war fever on this. I think they have to view it as a heightened level of
counter terrorist activity." – Global Post
"Not only are white supremacists from across the West flocking to Ukraine to learn from
the combat experience of their fascist brothers-in-arms, they are doing so openly, under the
nose of a shrugging law enforcement -- chronicling their experiences on social media before
they bring their lessons back home."
The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it was
also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside
the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir
Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.
Trump isn't vulnerable he hired the Deep State apparatchiks, Bolton, Pompeo and many
others. Trump is a Deep Stater and is doing a great Kabuki theater to dupe his followers into
believing his hands are tied.
How do YOU expect me (and others) to swallow YOUR position?
with a great gulps of satisfaction, that's how.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine was manufactured by the ZUS State Dept. ((Victoria
Nuland)) and John McBloodstain in particular, when Putin upset the Zionist's plans to do a
'Libya' – to Syria.
It was a bloody coup foisted with 5 billion federal reserve note$, of the famous phone
call ('Yats is our guy'). Since then the imbeciles in Ukraine have been doing Nazi salutes
while taking orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists like Ihor Kolomoyskyi and assorted ZUS
Zionists.
The conflict with Iran started when the CIA deposed the duly elected president Mohammed
Mossadeq in 1953, and installed the brutal quisling Shah in his place. To keep the Iranian
people terrorized for decades into submitting to this perfidy, they utilized the CIA and
Mossad run SAVAK.
"We must confront Russian cheating on their nuclear obligations," Pompeo said at the
conclusion of the NATO meeting, claiming the U.S. has warned Russia to re-enter compliance
about 30 times over the past five years. He urged the West to increase pressure, arguing it can
no longer "bury its head in the sand" over repeat violations.
But for the first time Pompeo signaled it's not too late to salvage the treaty, despite
Trump already saying the US it taking steps to pull out: he said Washington "would welcome a
Russian change of heart."
On Oct. 20 President Trump first announced the United States' planned withdrawal from the
historic treaty brokered by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan
in 1987. At the time Russia's Foreign Ministry
slammed the move as "a very dangerous step" which is ultimately part of "continuing
attempts to achieve Russia's concessions through blackmail". Russian officials have issued the
counter-charge that it is the US that's out of compliance with the treaty.
The US is waging unconstitutional war in Syria without authorization of the UNSC but
Pompeo has the effrontery to lecture the Russians on their "lawlessness."
Is there ONE freaking day out of the year when some senior official of the USG is not
acting like an utter horse's ***?
Putin should just have the SVR make some fake "proof" Trump is a Russian agent and feed it
to the democratic-isis-******-lover party and let them tear Trump a new *******.
Considering it was the democrats who first pushed this muh russian meddlings, can't even
see how will the US be able to pull itself out of this (****)hole they dug for
themselves...
So the US with a big lead in ballistic missiles and anti-ballistic missiles, wants to blow
that up to promote the development of long range stealth cruise missiles, well, I guess there
must be a massive profit in it.
The normal rule in a arms race though, the big losers are the countries with the biggest
lead in current war technologies, when new technologies enter the fray, negating existing
investments and bankrupting that country as the right off their existing lead and having to
race to play catch up and take the lead again.
It's like the crazy, the US leads in space, great lets that it into a battlefield and
eliminate that lead, why, just ******* why would you be stupid enough, banning war in space
protects you lead, promoting war in space ends it. Blocking long range cruise missiles
protects the US lead in ballistic missiles and anti-ballistics missile systems, allowing it
ends that lead.
Now in the most idiotic fashion, the US has declared it will arbitrarily leave that treaty
without any evidence of anything, now setting the precedent, that any country can withdraw
from any treaty with the US for any arbitrary reason because that is the behaviour the US
government has set precedent for, why hold any treaty with the US, when they will pull out at
any time for any reason. The probable message from the rest of the world to the US, yeah ****
off America, we are not Native Americans who exist for you to abuse us
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/01/18/368559990/broken-promises-on-display-at-native-american-treaties-exhibit
(we know it is in the American government nature but **** off anyhow).
What a pompous *** Pompeo is. After his lies about MbS how can I trust him on this issue.
Is the US clean? They are certainly not in compliance with the chemical weapons treaty having
destroyed no stockpiles as they agreed to do....almost 2 decades after the treaty was
signed.
Treaties are ******** unless the parties to them actually implement them and follow the
rules. The US seems to believe they have an inherent right to ignore the treaties they sign
up to. Why anyone deals with them I have no idea.
Where did Trump get these Bush 2,Zionist pig holdovers?
After Bush 2 dumped ABM treaty NATO/US have been creeping up to Russias border.
Then in 2014, Obama & Nuland decided it would be a good idea to effect regime change
in Ukraine and put neonazi thugs on Russia's border.
EU Israhelli clients all know this is ******** about Russia. But Russia pissed off the
Zionist entity in interfering with Yinon/7countries in five years plan.
How LONG are we going to put up with this Zionist attack on our country?
They are asking why Russia not keeping treaty while we violate it?
Secretary of war Mike Pompeo
Washington Seeks 'Pretext' to Abandon INF Treaty - Russian Envoy to US
"...We are accused of violating the Treaty by allegedly possessing a certain 9M729
missile that violates the accord's provisions. However, we do not see any clear facts or
arguments that could lead to conclusions of violations,"
Sputnik Here
Russia, China, Iran challenging global US leadership: Pompeo
"..US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has targeted Russia, China and Iran for opposing
Washington's "leadership role". PressTv
Just accuse without any specific evidence.
another
China has simply made no effort to halt its ongoing pattern of aggressive
, predatory trade .
US always blaming others while violating every law and treaty known to man.
" I regret that we now most likely will see the end of the INF Treaty," North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declared ...
Fixed: " I'm ecstatic that our fabricated accusations allows us to finally see the end of
the INF Treaty, which really benefits Russia far more than NATO," North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declared ...
The whole point of the US strategy is to use short-range cruise missiles to take out
Russian retaliatory capability in a first strike, thereby destroying all of those hypersonic
weapons, and using their ABM systems to "clean up" any missiles that survived the initial
onslaught. The "advantage" of the short-range cruise missiles is that they greatly reduce
Russia's available response times - it basically must decide to annihilate the US within 5
minutes of notice of an attack, or face being wiped out with no retaliatory capabilities. (It
is worth noting that, in the past, false alarms have lasted for longer than 5 minutes.)
This is by far the most destabilizing, dangerous move, ever - any false blip on a Russian
radar can lead to an all-out nuclear exchange. It is infinitely more threatening to humanity
than "global warming". Brought to you by the Evil Drumfpster.
The Dead Man Hand only allows you to respond with capabilities that have survived and that
are not eliminated by the ABM. The 5 minutes notice is until the vast majority of your
nuclear arsenal is decimated - dead hand (i.e., ability to retaliate if the leadership is
entirely decapitated) or not.
Is Mike Pompeo Starting to Look Like Kim Jong Un? He is talking like communist leader at
Communist party congress.
Mike Pompeo argued that Trump's reassertion of national sovereignty through his "America
First" policy would make those institutions function better. "In the finest traditions of our
great democracy, we are rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order
that prevents war and achieves greater prosperity for all," Pompeo said at a speech at the
German Marshall Fund thinktank. "We're
supporting institutions that we believe can be improved; institutions that work in American
interests – and yours – in service of our shared values."
He listed a series of current international institutions, including the EU, UN, World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund, that he said were no longer serving their mission they
were created.
The remarks were frequently punctuated with praise for Trump, who is referred to 13 times
in the text. Pompeo portrayed his president as restoring an era of triumphal US leadership in
the world, for the first time since the end of the cold war.
"This American leadership allowed us to enjoy the greatest human flourishing in modern
history," the secretary of state said. "We won the cold war. We won the peace. With no small
measure of George HW Bush's effort, we reunited Germany. This is the type of leadership that
President Trump is boldly reasserting."
President [George H. W.] Bush used to talk about a new world order, based on shared rules
and on cooperation among free nations. I was at high school at the time, and I remember
perfectly well the sense of hope and of opening that one could breathe in Europe over these
years.
He imagined - and I quote - "a world where the rule of law supplants the role of the
jungle; a world in which nations recognise their shared responsibility for freedom and
justice; a world where the strong respect the rights of the weak."
My generation believed in this vision, believed in the possibility for this vision to turn
into reality, to become true, especially in Europe - a continent divided by the Cold War. We
hoped that after the Cold War a more cooperative world order would indeed be possible and
indeed be built.
Today, I am afraid we have to admit that such a new world order has never truly
materialised and worse, there is a real risk today that the rule of the jungle replaces the
rule of law. The same international treaties - so many in which we are together - that ended
the Cold War are today put into question.
Instead of building a new order, we have to today invest a huge part of our energy in
preventing the current rules from being dismantled piece by piece.
Like many people, I do not find what is known as the concept of Mutual Assured
Destruction, or MAD to be reassuring. Spurring the creation of more ways to use nuclear
weapons is what ending the INF Treaty will do. Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister, and
Vice-Chancellor from 1998-2005 writes;
In this new environment, the "rationality of deterrence" maintained by the United
States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War has eroded. Now, if nuclear proliferation
increases, the threshold for using nuclear weapons will likely fall.
The nuclear deterrent we hold is a hundred times larger than needed to stop anyone sane or
rational from attacking America, and for anyone else, an arsenal of any size will be
insufficient. What we are talking about is the Intermediate-range Nuclear-Forces treaty also
known as the INF Treaty which limits short-range missiles. The article below explores the
insanity of a new arms race.
China and Russia don't want a military arms race but they will get one. The funny part is
they will confide in Trump about their woes and he will mimic their desires but not agree
with them.
"We are either going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all - at which point we
will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States.
Ultimately, I believe, we will be making a deal - either now or into the future....
Armed conflict between the US and Iran is becoming more probable by the day as super-hawks
replace hawks in the Trump administration. The new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, has
called for the US to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 and advocated immediate regime
change in Tehran. The new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has said the agreement, which Trump
may withdraw from on 12 May, is "a disaster". Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu that he will not accept a deal with "cosmetic changes" as advocated by European
states, according to Israeli reporters. If this is so, then the deal is effectively dead.
... ... ...
The new line-up in Washington is being described as "a war cabinet" and it may turn out to
be just that. But looking at ignorant, arrogant men like Bolton and Pompeo, it is difficult to
avoid the feeling that it will all end in disaster.
The author is tried to deceive: Flynn lobbed Russians on behave of Israel.
Muller dirty trick with Flynn (entrapment during the FBI interview) will eventually backfire
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller's memo noted that federal investigators' curiosity about Flynn's role in the presidential transition seemed to have been sparked by a Washington Post account of a conversation he had with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in December 2016 ..."
"... But the meat of what should worry Team Trump is in Mueller's disclosure that Flynn has provided firsthand information about interactions between the transition team and Russian government officials -- including, as was already known, several conversations with Kislyak in December 2016. Those included a discussion about lifting economic sanctions the Obama administration had imposed on Russia and about a separate matter involving a United Nations resolution on Israel. ..."
All of that, plus Flynn's "substantial assistance," early cooperation, and acceptance of "responsibility for his unlawful conduct,"
led Muller's team to ask the court to grant Flynn a lenient sentence that doesn't include prison time, according to
a highly anticipated sentencing memo the special counsel's office filed Tuesday night.
And there wasn't much more than that in 13 concise and heavily redacted pages that let down anyone expecting the document to be
another public narrative fleshing out lots of fresh detail about Mueller's investigation. Still, the filing, and some new details
in it, should give pause to members of Trump's inner circle -- especially the president's son-in-law and senior White House adviser,
Jared Kushner.
Mueller's memo noted that federal investigators' curiosity about Flynn's role in the presidential transition seemed to have
been sparked by a Washington Post account of a conversation he had with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in December
2016 . The filing also detailed a series of lies Flynn told about his contacts with and work for the Turkish government while
serving in the Trump campaign. (Given that Trump and a pair of his advisers had been pursuing
a real estate deal in Moscow during the first half of 2016, Flynn might mistakenly have seen wearing two hats as noncontroversial.)
But the meat of what should worry Team Trump is in Mueller's disclosure that Flynn has provided firsthand information about
interactions between the transition team and Russian government officials -- including, as was already known, several conversations
with Kislyak in December 2016. Those included a discussion about lifting economic sanctions the Obama administration had imposed
on Russia and about a separate matter involving a United Nations resolution on Israel.
Flynn lied to federal agents who questioned him about those chats on Jan. 24, 2017, and that was a crime (as, possibly, were his
efforts as a private citizen to meddle with a sitting government's foreign policy). The former general
acknowledged lying ,
pleaded guilty a year ago, and
then began cooperating with Mueller's
probe.
The timeline around Flynn's conversations
is crucial because it shows what's still in play for the president and Kushner -- and why Mueller may have been content to lock
in a cooperation agreement that carried relatively light penalties, as well as why Flynn's assistance seems to have subsequently
pleased the veteran prosecutor so much.
Kushner's actions are also interesting because the Federal Bureau of Investigation has examined
his
own communications with Kislyak -- and Kushner reportedly encouraged Trump to fire his FBI director,
James Comey , in the
spring of 2017, when Comey was still in the early stages of digging into the Trump-Russia connection.
Comey, and his successor, Mueller, have been focused on possible favor-trading between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. We
know that Russian hackers directed by Russian intelligence operatives penetrated Democrat computer servers in 2016 and gave that
information and email haul to WikiLeaks to disseminate as part of an effort to undermine Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Trump
was also pursuing that
business deal in Moscow in 2016 and had other projects over the years
with a Russian presence . What might the Kremlin have been expecting in return? A promise to lift U.S. economic sanctions?
Kushner also had personal financial issues weighing on his mind at the time. He had spent much of 2016 trying to bail out his
family from his ill-considered and pricey purchase of a Manhattan skyscraper,
666 Fifth
Avenue .
After a meeting in Trump Tower with Kislyak on Dec. 1, 2016, which Flynn and Kushner
attended together ,
the ambassador arranged another gathering on Dec. 13 for Kushner and a
senior Russian
banker with Kremlin ties, Sergei Gorkov. The White House has
said that meeting was
innocent and part of Kushner's diplomatic duties. In a
statement
following his testimony before Congress in the summer of 2017, Kushner said that his interactions with Flynn and Kislyak on Dec.
1 only involved a discussion of Syria policy, not economic sanctions. He said that his discussion with Gorkov on Dec. 13 lasted less
than 30 minutes and only involved an exchange of pleasantries and hopes for better U.S.-Russian relations -- and didn't include any
discussion of recruiting Russians as lenders or investors in the Kushner family's
real estate business .
Kislyak enjoyed continued lobbying from the White House after his meetings with Kushner. On Dec. 22, Flynn asked Kislyak to delay
a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel for building settlements in Palestinian territory. Flynn later told the FBI that
he didn't ask Kislyak to do that, which wasn't true.
Court documents filed last year
said that a "very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team" directed Flynn to make an overture to Kislyak about the sanctions
vote. According to reporting from my
Bloomberg Opinion colleague Eli Lake and
NBC News , Kushner was that "senior member."
Bloomberg News reported that former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus also pushed Flynn to lobby Kislyak on the
U.N. vote. (Kushner didn't discuss pressing Flynn to contact Kislyak in his statement last summer and instead noted how infrequent
his direct interactions were.)
Kushner's role in these events isn't discussed in Mueller's sentencing memo for Flynn. The absence of greater detail might cause
Kushner to worry: If Flynn offered federal authorities a different version of events than Kushner -- and Flynn's version is buttressed
by documentation or federal electronic surveillance of the former general -- then the president's son-in-law may have to start scrambling
(a possibility
I flagged
when Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017).
Other portions of the 2016 and early 2017 timelines still matter, too.
On Dec. 28, less than a week after Flynn called Kislyak about the U.N. vote, the ambassador contacted Flynn, according to court
documents. The Obama administration had just imposed economic sanctions on Russia because of the Kremlin's effort to sabotage the
2016 election. Kislyak apparently told Flynn that Russia would retaliate because Flynn asked him to "moderate" Russia's response.
Flynn
reportedly discussed these conversations with a former Trump adviser, K.T. McFarland, on Dec. 29.
In the weeks that followed, Sally Yates, then acting U.S. attorney general, warned the Trump administration about Flynn's duplicity
and said he was a national security threat. She was fired days after that for refusing to enforce Trump's executive order seeking
to ban immigration from seven Islamic nations. The White House forced Flynn out in February of last year, and Trump fired Comey three
months later. The president subsequently began using "witch hunt" to describe the investigation that Mueller inherited from Comey.
Since then, as the White House and Trump have surely absorbed and as Flynn's sentencing memo reinforces, Mueller's hunt has now
ensnared a number of witches.
Chinese version of neoliberalism and the USA version do differ.
Notable quotes:
"... I especially encourage the Russians on here to return to their home country. There is little point writing material critical of America in English on fringe media sites while in America contributing to the US economy and paying US taxes. My observation has been that the Russian personality not to mention background doesn't fare terribly well in corporate America. Why waste your energy in a country and system beyond reform that despises you for who you are that only accepts you for your labor. You'll find a better fit in your home country where you'll actually have genuine social belonging, which, unlike China, actually really needs more people. ..."
"... Xi might have stepped up too early, but maybe this wouldn't matter. When the Americans decide to confront China depends on the Americans. In case you believe that US presidents drive US policy, Trump was saying things about China 25 years ago. ..."
"... Chinese progress has been most impressive but the country is sitting on an enormous pile of private and SOE debt.. There has not been a country in recorded history that has accumulated debt at the rate China did post the 2008 crash. ..."
"... @Achmed E. Newman Dictatorships are personality dependent, as opposed to democracies that are ? dependent. Communism came up with a catchy slogan – dictatorship of the proletariat. Why couldn't US – which are, after all, a birthplace of propaganda – come up with a similarly catchy slogan, such as: Democracy – dictatorship of the elitariat? Or maybe, Democracy – dictatorship of the deep state. ..."
"... I worked for Chinese-Filipinos and this is really 100% true. The ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia are the most heartless capitalists on earth. ..."
"... [You have been repeatedly warned that you leave far too many rambling, vacuous comments, especially since so many of them demonstrate your total ignorance. Fewer and fewer of your comments will be published until you improve your commenting-behavior or better yet permanently depart for another website] ..."
Great, but kinda pedestrian. Lemme use this platform to point out China's flaws from a
Chinese perspective.
Chinese society and Chinese people are too arrogant, materialistic, and hypersensitive to
criticism.
This is a huge problem. One, it alienates pretty much anyone who becomes familiar with
China. Two, it leads to mistake after mistake when no criticism is offered to correct them in
time. Three, it causes society to view things overly in terms of money, falling behind in all
other aspects. Nobody cares how much rich or strong you are if you're a crass, materialistic
asshole. They'll hate you.
All societies have these issues, few are as bad as China. There are Chinese reading this
right now and getting angry and ready to call me a traitor, demonstrating my point
exactly.
A wise dictator is great for the country, but Xi is not wise. He is a stubborn old man
stuck in the past who is clearly not listening to advisers. He has overplayed his hand,
confronted the US 10~20 years too early, damaged China's image out of some paranoid fear of
Uyghurs, and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead
driving them further into the arms of the Americans.
China does not need more repression right now, it needs to slowly liberalize to keep the
economy growing and competitive. I'm not talking about western style "open society" bullshit,
traitors like multiculturalists and feminists should always be persecuted. But the
heavy-handed censorship, monitoring of everyday citizens is completely unnecessary. If China
does not develop a culture of trust, and genuine, non-money based curiosity, it will not have
the social structure to overcome the west.
Outside of trade and money-related issues, the Chinese citizenry is woefully ignorant of
the outside world. There is no widespread understanding of foreign cultures and ideologies,
how they might threaten us, how to defend against them, or how to work around them. An
overwrought sense of nationalism emphasizes Chinese victimhood to the point of absurdity,
squandering any sympathy onlookers might have, and actually causes some to turn 180 and hate
China instead.
Angry, condescending attitudes towards our neighbors, especially Japan, severely cripple
China's ability to be a world player. Without a network of like-minded friends (actual
friends, not trade partners), China will never be able to match the western alliance. It is
not just America we have to overcome, but an entire bloc of nations. I don't care how much
people hate our neighbors, China must extend the olive branch, present a sincere face of
benevolence, and not act like the big guy with a fragile ego. Racially and culturally similar
East Asians are the best candidates for long-term friendship, it is wrong to forsake them
under the assumption that all we need is Russia or Pakistan.
Despite the trade war, I'm not worried about China's economy, infrastructure, political
system, or innate ability. These are our strengths. I have no love for liberal democracy or
western values. But China must change its attitude and the way it interacts with the outside
world soon, or face geopolitical disaster.
Don't overreact to every insult or criticism. Compete in areas that isn't just money or
materials. Really understand soft power, and what it takes to be liked around the world.
Develop our own appealing ideas and worldview. Listen to well-meaning, nationalistic critics,
and change before the world discovers China's ugly side.
I would say that yes, dictatorships tend to be more efficient than "democracy". The only
major downside to dictatorships are that usually dictators – thanks perhaps to personal
ambitions, lack of accountability, volatile personalities – tend to cause major wars.
That's a reason why someone becomes a dictator – to make it into the history books.
And the easiest way to make it into the history books is to cause a major war(s) and capture
all the glory that comes with causing the deaths of as many people as possible.
But then again, looking at the US, they don't seem to have been disadvantaged by a lack of
dictators at all, as far as starting wars goes. One has to wonder, are dictatorships even
competitive with US in the category of causing wars?
By Tiensen do you mean Tencent, famous now for its WeChat which I use for messaging and
payments. I now also use their cloud storage Weiyun (3 TB on only 10 RMB / month) as well as
their email.
By the way, Nvidia, YouTube, and Yahoo were all founded by ethnic Chinese from Taiwan. I
actually think Nvidia is more impressive than both Microsoft or Google. Its GPU technology is
much higher barrier to entry and as far as I can tell still exclusive to America.
I may well never come back to America ever again, and thus, most of what goes on in
America will no longer be directly relevant to me. I could give pretty much zero of a fuck
about the nonsense on China in the English language press, which I will only look at very
occasionally, and those who create it. It would be rather futile to try to change the views
of the majority of white Americans. Of course, there are a minority of white Americans who
are more informed, reasonable, and open-minded, the ones I tended to interact with back in
America, many of whom are unhappy with the state of American society. They are welcome to
contact me (my email is on my website), and if they use not an American email, I'll be more
willing to share certain information with them and possibly connect them to China-related
business/opportunities.
I especially encourage the Russians on here to return to their home country. There is
little point writing material critical of America in English on fringe media sites while in
America contributing to the US economy and paying US taxes. My observation has been that the
Russian personality not to mention background doesn't fare terribly well in corporate
America. Why waste your energy in a country and system beyond reform that despises you for
who you are that only accepts you for your labor. You'll find a better fit in your home
country where you'll actually have genuine social belonging, which, unlike China, actually
really needs more people.
Main difference is China is about Chinese ruling over Chinese with Chinese pride, whereas
America is about JAG(Jews-Afros-Gays) ruling over whites with 'white guilt', jungle fever,
and homomania.
Problem with China is too much corruption and petty greed.
Many tried to warn the weenies what would happen while our industries were "donated" to China
and got hosed for their trouble. Pat Buchanan's troubles actually started when he wrote
The Great Betrayal , even if they took a little extra time to pull his syndicated
column down.
Did you know about a World War II-era Kaiser steel mill once in California, that was cut
up in blocks like a model kit and shipped in its entirety to China?
It happened right out in the open, under Daddy Bush, and everyone who complained became an
unperson, Orwell-style. Nobody dared object to the glories of free trade. And the Chinese in
California said it was doing so because they had a multi-million ton Plan to fill, and it was
almost the 21st century.
China is now taking the wealth their nation is creating with stuff developed in Europe,
Britain, and the United States. The hole in the donut is they could have done all that under
license and we could have kept on with, and even improved our industrial base.
But in fact our leaders had Gender Reassignment in mind for the 21st century, not actual
productive work that truly builds nations. The Impoverishment of Nations is well known: Send
the real work out, keep the barbarians inside well-fed, sharp-clawed, and morally
depraved.
" its stunning advance in forty years from impoverished Third World to a huge economy"
Bullshit. The stunning advance occurred between 1950-1975. Starting with an industrial
base smaller than that of Belgium's in the 50s, the China that for so long was ridiculed as
"the sick man of Asia" emerged at the end of the Mao period as one of the six largest
industrial producers in the world.
National income grew five-fold over the 25-year period 1952-78, increasing from 60 billion
to over 300 billion yuan, with industry accounting for most of the growth. On a per capita
basis, the index of national income (at constant prices) increased from 100 in 1949 (and 160
in 1952) to 217 in 1957 and 440 in 1978.
Over the last two decades of the Maoist era, from 1957 to 1975, China's national income
increased by 63 percent on a per capita basis during this period of rapid population growth,
more than doubling overall and the basic foundations for modern industrialism were laid and
outpacing every other development takeoff in history.
In Germany the rate of economic growth 1880-1914 was 33 percent per decade.
In Japan from 1874-1929 the rate was 43 percent.
The Soviet Union over the period 1928-58 the rate was 54 percent.
In China over the years 1952-72 the decadal rate was 64 percent.
Bear in mind that, save for limited Soviet aid in the 1950s, repaid in full and with
interest by 1966, Mao's industrialization proceeded without benefit of foreign loans or
investments–under punitive embargoes the entire 25 years–yet Mao was unique among
developing country leaders in being able to claim an economy burdened by neither foreign debt
nor internal inflation.
Socially China has a great advantage over America in that, except for the Muslims of
Xinjiang, it is pretty much a Han monoculture. Lacking America's racial diversity, its
cities do not burn, no pressure exists to infantilize the schools for the benefit of
incompetent minorities, racial mobs do not loot stores, and there is very little street
crime.
Wait, weren't you a supporter of American racial diversity? Weren't the millions of dusty
beaners entering the US a God's gift to the country's rich, colorful, cultural tapestry?
A dictatorship can simply do things. It can plan twenty, or fifty, years down the
road.
So can the Western, globalist (((deep state))). The Chinese dictatorship is simply doing
it for themselves and their nation. Their people's lives are getting better for
decades while we have every reason to envy our grandfathers.
"China has an adult government that gets things done. America has a kaleidoscopically
shifting cast of pathologically aggressive curiosities in the White House."
Well put: I have long argued that the last adult president was Bush the Elder – what
followed was a sorry sequence of adolescents.
There was only one chance to elect a non-preposterous grown-up – Romney. It was
spurned.
But be of good cheer: the White House might currently be occupied by an absurd oaf, but it
might have been Hellary, a grown-up with vices not to my taste. Better the absurd than the
appalling?
As for China – I've never been there. At second-hand I am impressed. But it too
could take a tumble – life's like that.
@Cyrano Having a
dictator is not just a bad idea because of wars, Cyrano. The English spent many centuries
slowly chipping away at the ultimate power of Kings and Queens. I'm pretty sure that if they
hadn't done that, you and I would not be here writing to each other today.
There can be a powerful Monarchy or Dictator, say, like under Queen Victoria or Josef
Stalin. There will be much different outcomes. It would be a shame if the good King or
dictator happens to die and leave the whole nation to a bad one, and your children's lives
are much the worse for it, don't you think?
China is a perfect example, as anyone growing up under Mao had it very rough, even if he
didn't get swept up in the 1,000 lawnmowers campaign or the Cultural Revolution. If you had
been born in 1950, say, that was tough luck for much of your life. If you were born in 1985,
though, well, as one can read in the column above, it's a different story.
Since I brought up Queen Victoria, and now have this song in my head (not a bad thing), I
will move it into Reed's Reeders' heads now. Great stuff!:
@dearieme I agree
with your sentiment, Dearieme, and I completely agree with you about George H.W. Bush* being
the last President to act like one should.. However, that shouldn't matter anyway. Our system
of government is NOT supposed to be about who is president making a big difference in how
things run. It used to work like that too, before the people betrayed the US Constitution and
let the Feral Gov't get out of hand.
The fact is, that Mitt Romney or not, per Mr. Franz above,
the country has been in the process of being given away for > 2 decades now. Yes, no
manufacturing might, no country left. That brings up what is wrong with Mr. Reed's article,
which I'll get to in a minute.
* Politically, I hate the guy, but that's not what your point is.
I am not knocking the observations of how things run economically in America vs. in China. I
think the article does a good job on that. However, the whole analysis part seems kind of
STATIC. I know Fred knows better, as he grew up in what was a different country and BY FAR
the most powerful economically, precisely because it was when the US Feral Gov't still left
private (at least small) business alone for the most part.
You do realize, Mr. Reed, that the US was NOT created to be a democracy, but a
Constitutional Republic? China WAS a totalitarian society, but things only got (WAY) better
after Chairman Deng decided that the central government would start leaving people alone to
do business. The Chinese are very good at business and are very hard workers.
Yes, the Chinese government runs much better, at this point, than the US Feral Gov't after
years and years (say 5 decades) of infiltration by the ctrl-left. All of our institutions
have been infiltrated, governments , big-business , media , universities ,
lower
education all of it. China had it's physical Long March, and 3 decades of hard-core
Communism, but they got over it. America has had it's Long March on the down low, and is
reaping the whirlwind at the present. Will we get over it? Maybe, but it'll take guns. We got
'em.
The winds of change have blown through. They can change direction again. For a place like
America, it's not going to take one powerful man (look how ineffective President Trump has
been), but the people and a movement. Just as some have been unobservant of China over the
last 2 decades, many will miss the changes here too.
Germany in 1880 was much nearer the technological frontier than China was in 1950. The Japan comparison is better, but Japan at the end of the Tokugawa era was about as
developed as Britain in 1700 (and had already for instance substantially displaced China in
the exported silk market).
The Soviet Union suffered certain events in the period from 1941-1945 you may wish to look
up.
More relevant comparisons might be South Korea and Taiwan. Or even postwar Italy, Spain,
Portugal, and Greece.
I think most informed people now are aware that Soviet-style central planning is effective
for the initial industrialization phase. What we dispute is that it is uniquely
effective, as Mazuo and Sovoks insisted. Other systems have matched its performance at lower
human and geopolitical cost.
@dearieme GHW
certainly acted Presidential, but did that help America?
He was the architect of NAFTA (even if signed by Bill Clinton) and signed the Immigration
Act of 1990, which significantly increased the yearly number of immigrant visas that could be
issued and created the disastrous Temporary Protected Status visa.
A wise dictator is great for the country, but Xi is not wise. He is a stubborn old man
stuck in the past who is clearly not listening to advisers. He has overplayed his hand,
confronted the US 10~20 years too early, damaged China's image out of some paranoid fear of
Uyghurs, and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead
driving them further into the arms of the Americans.
Xi might have stepped up too early, but maybe this wouldn't matter. When the Americans
decide to confront China depends on the Americans. In case you believe that US presidents
drive US policy, Trump was saying things about China 25 years ago.
The Uyghur thing nobody cares about. The western media would find something else to lie
about.
I agree with the things you say afterwards. although I find it difficult to see China
becoming likable to it's neighbors. I believe the big thing will be to see what the CCP does
in the next economic crisis; will they change or will they turtle into bad policy and
stagnate. The challenge after that would be the demographics.
@dearieme Mormons
are idealists, not realists, which puts them outside the grown-up pale in my book. Mormonism
might as well be called American Suburbanism at this point. That lifestyle takes a lot of
things for granted that will not be around much longer. They top out intellectually at the
level of mid-tier management.
To be fair, this applies to most Americans, convinced that inside everybody is a
conformist, suburban American just waiting to get out.
There's a case that can be made that Mormonism is actually the official American
religion.
Chinese progress has been most impressive but the country is sitting on an enormous pile of
private and SOE debt.. There has not been a country in recorded history that has accumulated
debt at the rate China did post the 2008 crash.
It would be a shame if the good King or dictator happens to die and leave the whole
nation to a bad one, and your children's lives are much the worse for it, don't you
think?
Sure, but the bad one would run the risk of being overthrown and his bloodline
slaughtered. Everyone would know that the buck ends with him and his family.
Modern "democracies" dilute this responsibility and leave room for a set of hidden kings
and dictators to run the show from the shadows. The plebs are supposed to vent their
frustration by voting out the bad guys but that's useless (a pressure relief valve, really)
if the shadow dictators control the information and the choices.
@Thorfinnsson
"GHW certainly acted Presidential, but did that help America?:
I've no idea but it's not the point anyway. The point is that he presumably arrived at his
decisions by thinking like an adult, instead of being blown around on gusts of adolescent
emotions, like Slick Willie, W, O, and Trump.
@Anonymous He may
run that risk, but with absolute authority, who will stand up to him? You've got to know the
history of Western Civilization (Europe, I mean) is filled with years and centuries of
terrible, evil Kings and Queens in countries far and wide, right?
As far as democracies go, no, it doesn't work in the long, or even medium, run, unless you
withhold the vote for landowners and only those with responsibility. I don't thing that's
been the case here except for the first 50 years or so. You give the vote to the young, the
stupid, the irresponsible, the women, etc., and it goes downhill. In America's case, it took
a long time to go downhill because we had a lot of human and real capital built up.
Now, this is all why this country, as I wrote already above, was not set up to BE a
democracy, Mr #126. It was to be a Constitutional Republic, with powers of the Feral Gov't
limited by the document. However, once the population treats it as nothing but a piece of
paper, that's all it becomes.
Chinese progress is impressive in absolute terms, but it is much more impressive in relative
terms. While the US and all its sidekicks are ruining their countries by losing
manufacturing, running up mountains of debt, and dumbing down the populace by horrible
educational system and uncontrolled immigration of wild hordes with medieval mentality, some
countries, including China, keep moving up. But the achievements of China or Russia wouldn't
look so great without the simultaneous suicide of the West.
Let me give you the example I know best. As a scientist and an Editor of several
scientific journals I see the decline of scientific production in the US: just 20 years ago
it clearly dominated, but now it went way down. There emerged lots of papers from big China.
Quality-wise, most of them are still sub-par, but they are getting into fairly decent
journals because of the void left by the decline of science in the US.
Yes, if current tendencies continue for 20 more years, Chinese science would improve and
China would become an uncontested leader in that field. However, if the US reins in its
thieving elites and shifts to a more sensible course, it still has the potential to remain
the world leader in science. It just needs to cut military spending to 20-30% of its current
crazy unsustainable levels and invest some of the saved resources into science, industry
(real one, not banking that only produces bubbles galore), and infrastructure. Is this
realistic? Maybe not, but hope springs eternal.
@Jason Liu As a
long time China watcher myself I didn't see anything you described with regards to China's
foreign policy, including its dealing with its East Asian neighbors. From what I saw China's
statecraft with respect to its neighbors is mature, friendly, measured, restraint and long
term thinking. May be I am missing something or see something and interpret it in an opposite
way than you did. For example you said
"and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead driving
them further into the arms of the Americans"
"Angry, condescending attitudes towards our neighbors, especially Japan, severely cripple
China's ability to be a world player. "
I didn't see any of that. Any specific example to illustrate your point?
@DB Cooper Again,
Chinese and Russian foreign policy looks best when you compare it to the US. Both countries
made their fair share of blunders, but next to the rabid dog US they look decidedly sensible
and restrained.
@Jason Liu You
may very well be accurately describing the attitudes of individual Chinamen; but I see
no evidence that the Chinese government is all that guilty of alienating other countries. On
the contrary, they seem to be doing quite well. Even the hated Japs can't seem to invest
enough money into China.
There may be something to this. If you look at centuries of Chinese painting, you will
see that each generation largely made copies of earlier masters. As nearly as I, a
nonexpert, can tell, there is more variety and imagination in the Corcoran Gallery's annual
exhibition of high-school artists than in all of Chinese paining.
There was a point in time when I would have agreed with Fred on this; but seeing what's
become of Western art over the last century, I can't anymore. A few centuries ago, Western
art was surely making progress by leaps and bounds. These days though, it's in swift decline.
All it's got left to offer is pointless pretentiousness. At least traditional Chinese
painting still requires some real craftsmanship and skill.
Chinese progress has been most impressive but the country is sitting on an enormous pile
of private and SOE debt.. There has not been a country in recorded history that has
accumulated debt at the rate China did post the 2008 crash.
This is what happens to your brain on Forbes and the Wall Street Journal .
In reality, China is the world's largest creditor. In fact, it's the US which is the largest
debtor in the world.
All that Chinese debt that the Western presstitutes go on an on about is really just an
accounting gimmick: some state-owned bank in China makes a loan to some state-owned
conglomerate there, and this gets written down as a debt. But the Chinese government (which
owns both of them) is never going to allow either of the two parties to actually go bankrupt,
so the debt isn't actually real. It's no different than ordering your right-pocket to lend
your left-pocket ten dollars: your right-pocket may now record that loan as an 'asset' on a
balance sheet somewhere, while your left-pocket will now record it as a 'liability', but
you as a person aren't any richer or poorer than you were before. You still have ten
dollars–no more, no less. And so it is with China. They merely 'owe' that money to
themselves.
@Achmed E. Newman
Dictatorships are personality dependent, as opposed to democracies that are ? dependent.
Communism came up with a catchy slogan – dictatorship of the proletariat.
Why couldn't US – which are, after all, a birthplace of propaganda – come up
with a similarly catchy slogan, such as: Democracy – dictatorship of the elitariat? Or
maybe, Democracy – dictatorship of the deep state.
I personally prefer elections where there is only one candidate and one voter – the
dictator, it kind of simplifies things. I think it takes a lot of bravery to be a dictator,
you don't delegate glory, but you don't delegate blame either, you take full responsibility
and full credit for whatever is happening in the country.
@Digital Samizdat
The sheer amount of shadow debt outstanding is huge. 250 to 300% of GDP by some estimates.
You reckon the Chinese government have this covered and can rescue failing institutions. They
probably don't even know how many bad loans need to be written off and how badly it will
cause a squeeze on normal lending.
From what I saw China's statecraft with respect to its neighbors is mature, friendly,
measured, restraint and long term thinking.
Do you think that correctly describes China's handling of claims in the South China Sea,
or its attitude toward the independent country of Taiwan, or its promotion of anti-Japanese
propaganda on Chinese television?
but I see no evidence that the Chinese government is all that guilty of alienating other
countries.
Its complete disregard of other nations' entirely legitimate claims in the South China Sea
is evidence to the contrary. It's not as if other nations must completely sever all relations
with China for any alienation to be occurring.
@Jason Liu
Excellent comment, Jason. Certainly if China wishes to again become Elder Brother to East
Asia, it needs to start relating to its neighbors as Little Brothers instead of obstacles to
be rudely shoved aside.
@gmachine1729
gmachine, Glad to hear you are in a place that you like and suits you. That is what nations
are all about. I am also in favor of native peoples contributing their effort (through
commercial, intellectual and spiritual endeavors) to the benefit of their fellow
nation-citizens, as long as those contributions are not wrung out by force of the state.
And Russia will have a lot more people by and by. They will be Chinese or Uyghar (sp?)
perhaps, but that empty space will surely be put to use by someone or someones. Whether the
Russians like that much could be another matter.
@Random
Smartaleck China's handling of the claims in South China Sea has been characterized by
restraint and a lot of patience. Basically a combination of dangling a big carrot with a
small stick. This is the reason the ASEAN has signed up to the SCS code of conduct and the
relation between the Philippines and China is at a all time high since Aquino's engineered
the PCA farce several years ago.
Taiwan considered itself the legitimate government of all of China encompassing the
mainland. It's official name is the Republic of China. Mainland China considered itself the
legitimate the government of all of China encompassing the island of Taiwan. Its official
name is the People's Republic of China. The so called 92 consensus agreed by both sides is
that each side agreed there is only one China and each side is free to interpret its own
version of China. For the mainland that means PRC (Peoples Republic of China). For Taiwan
that means ROC (Republic of China). There is no such thing as the independent country of
Taiwan.
China's tv has world war II drama doesn't constitute propaganda in as much as history
channel in the US has world war II topics all the time.
If the reporting I have read (widely sourced) about infrastructure quality, durability, and
actual utility is even 1/2 correct, quite a lot of government (especially provincial
government) directed development cannot and will not prove to be wise investment. Combined
with the opaque economic reporting, also subject to differing reporting as is infrastructure
rating, there is some good reason t believe that the nation has some huge huge challenges
diretly ahead.
The male overhang in China (and in India, others as well, but much smaller) is another
potential problem that is difficult to assess. Maybe it is a nothingburger, and 50 million
men without any chance to have a single wife will just find something else worthwhile and
rewarding to do with their time. Maybe not. Combine wasted urban investment, financial
chicanery on a gross scale, a narrow authoritarian structure and tens of millions of
unsatisfied, un-familied men, the downside looks pretty ugly.
Maybe that reporting is all bullshit. I don't think so. I think that Chinese leadership is
likely very concerned, hence so many of them securing property and anchor babies in the West.
I do hope for the sake of the Chinese people, and the rest of the globe, that whatever comes
along will not be too bad.
This is why I'm not afraid of China: Chinese are greedy soulless capitalists, or pagans as
another poster calls them. Spot on. A country of 1.3 billion pagans will always stay a low
trust society. Every Chinese dreams of getting rich, so they can get the hell out of China.
As for all the worship of education, no fear there either, the end goal of every single
one of their top students is to go an American university, then once they get here, do
everything they can to stay and never go back.
This is why I fear China: they are invading us, and bringing their dog-eat-dog, pagan ways
with them, slowly but surely turning us into another low-trust, pagan society like the one
they left behind. Also once they get here they instantly start chanting "China #1!", and look
out for interest of China rather than that of the US. If we were wise we would stop this
invasion now, but Javanka can't get enough of their EB5 dollars.
@Digital Samizdat
The problem is neither debt nor bankruptcies, although they are part of what is going on. It
is the artificially elevated level of economic activity and the expectations of the people
depending on that level continuing to sustain their lifestyles. The activity can only be
sustained by expanding credit. If you believe that credit can continue to expand infinitely,
well, we will see.
I notice that the Chinese are reducing their personal consumption in response to the
cracks appearing in the economies of the world. They are wise to do so.
We have the same problem in the US, probably worse, and it exists throughout most of the
"first" world. China has a decided advantage because of the degree of social control of its
people, but China will not be immune when the bubble breaks.
@Anon Fred
probably shouldn't say anything about art, but when has ignorance got in the way of USian
cultural putdowns? Anyway, the very idea that the Chinese merely make copies is nonsense,
pure and simple.
@Digital Samizdat
Well put. The propaganda on US websites is always about the debt as there is a need to
believe that China is going to collapse as it simply can't have achieved what it has without
freedom, democracy and the American way, or more accurately by not employing the disastrous
policy mix known as the Washington Consensus. It is the countries who followed that (likely
deliberately) flawed model of open exchange rates, low value added manufacturing (to enrich
US multinationals and consumers) with western FDI that have given the support for the
otherwise flawed Reinhardt and Roghoff study that everyone (who hasn't actually read it) uses
to justify why debt to GDP is 'a bad thing' over a certain level. As those benighted emerging
economies prospered from their trade relationship they were then offered lots of nice $ loans
for consumption, buying cars and houses and lots of western consumer goods. So current
account deficit, more $ funding, inflation, higher interest rates to control inflation
triggering a flow of hot money that drivers the exchange rate temporarily higher undermining
the export model. Then crash – exchange rate has killed export model, interest rates
cripple domestic demand, financial markets plummet, hot money rushes out, exchange rate
collapses so stagflation. Wall Street comes in and privatises the best assets and the US
taxpayer bails out the banks. Rinse and repeat.
China was supposed to 'act like a normal country' and play this game, but it didn't. It
followed the mercantilist model and built a balanced economy without importing western
consumer goods and financial services. However, unlike Germany, Japan or S.Korea, China does
not have a standing US Army on its soil to ensure that everything gets done for good old
Uncle Sam. Hence the bellicosity and the propaganda. China's debts are owned by China, as are
a lot of America's debts. Raising debt to build infrastructure and assets like toll roads,
airports, electricity grids, high speed railways means that there is an income bearing asset
to offset the liability. Raising debt to maintain hundreds of imperial bases around the world
less so.
@Mark T You are
very perceptive. The reason why China's debts are 'bad' while Uncle Scam's debts are 'good'
is because (((the usual suspects))) are profiting off the latter, but not the former. They
were betting that, if they gave the Chinese our industry, China would repay the favor by
giving them their finance sector in return. But that's not what happened! And now, (((the
usual suspects))) are waking up to the rather embarrassing realization they got played by
some slick operators from the East from wayyyy back East.
The so called 92 consensus agreed by both sides is that each side agreed there is only
one China and each side is free to interpret its own version of China. For the mainland
that means PRC (Peoples Republic of China). For Taiwan that means ROC (Republic of China).
There is no such thing as the independent country of Taiwan.
The "One China Policy" is a diplomatic sham designed to avoid bruising the fragile egos of
the two Chinas, and is insisted on by the PRC to aid in their Finlandization & eventual
absorption of Taiwan. Taiwan has been an independent country in all but diplomatic
nomenclature for 70 years. The PRC's claim that Taiwan is a "renegade province" is laughable.
The island is simply territory that the CCP never conquered. It is only the CCP's mad
insistence on the "China is the CCP, the CCP is China" formulation that convinces it
otherwise.
Likewise, Taiwan's claim of jurisdiction over the mainland -- while justifiable given
history -- is simply delusional. The ROC can do absolutely nothing to enforce this claim,
and, barring something truly extraordinary, will never be the government of the mainland
again. Regardless, this claim does not negate Taiwan's de facto independence because it has
absolutely nothing to do with placing Taiwan under others' control.
China's tv has world war II drama doesn't constitute propaganda in as much as history
channel in the US has world war II topics all the time.
You know better than that. We aren't talking about sober, fair-minded documentaries here.
The Chinese productions are lurid, over-the-top demonizations of the Japanese. These combined
with the National Humiliation curriculum and various museums show that the CCP quite likes
stoking hatred against Japan among the Chinese masses perhaps they hope to exploit it in some
near-future manufactured conflict.
@Random
Smartaleck "The "One China Policy" is a diplomatic sham designed to avoid bruising the
fragile egos of the two Chinas, and is insisted on by the PRC to aid in their Finlandization
& eventual absorption of Taiwan. "
It is insisted on by both sides. The quarrel between the ROC and the PRC is which one is
the legitimate government of China. The 92′ consensus only formalized this
understanding in a documented form.
This "One China Policy" has its root deep into the historic narrative of China when
successive dynasties replaced one after another and which dynasty should be recognized as the
legitimate successor dynasty to the former dynasty. If you read any Chinese history book at
the end of the book there is usually a cronological order of successive Chinese dynasties one
followed another in a linear fashion. But of course in reality very often it is not that
clean cut. Sometimes between transition several petty dynasties coexist each vying for the
legitimacy to get the mandate of heaven to rule the whole of China. This "One China Policy"
is just a modern manifestation of this kind of cultural understanding of the Chinese people
and has nothing to do with Communism, Nationalism or whateverism.
@Random
Smartaleck "These combined with the National Humiliation curriculum and various museums
show that the CCP quite likes stoking hatred against Japan among the Chinese masses perhaps
they hope to exploit it in some near-future manufactured conflict."
These kind of museums are fairly newly built, three decades old at most, many are even
newer and is a direct response to Japan historic revisism. If the CCP want to milk this kind
of anti-Japanese sentiment for its political purpose shouldn't they built this kind of museum
earlier? From what I understand the elaborate annual reenactment of the atomic bombing in
Nagasaki and Hiroshima begin the moment the US retreated from the administration of Japan in
1972. Now this is what I called the milking a victimhood sentiment for its political
purpose.
The largest tourist group to Japan from a foreign country is from mainland. If the CCP is
really stoking hatred to the Japanese then they really suck at it. What Japan did to China in
the last century don't need any stoking. History speaks for itself.
I would not debate Fred on any of the points he makes but I have a point of my own.After they
read Fred's article select any number of Chinese men and women at random and tell them they
are welcome to migrate to the US with no strings attached and at the same time select any
number of American men and women at random and tell them they will likewise be welcomed by
the Chinese. The proof should be in the pudding.
It followed the mercantilist model and built a balanced economy without importing
western consumer goods and financial services.
Agree somewhat. China did and does import a lot of western consumer goods. China is Germany's biggest
trading partner, and Germany has trade surplus with China. And China isn't even the world's largest trade surplus country . Germany is, followed by
Japan.
..
Germany poised to set world's largest trade surplus.
Germany is on track to record the world's largest trade surplus for a third consecutive year.
The country's $299 billion surplus is poised to attract criticism, however, both at home and
internationally. Germany is expected to set a €264 billion ($299 billion) trade surplus this year, far
more than its closest export rivals Japan and the Netherlands, according to research
published Monday by Munich-based economic research institute Ifo.
GM does well in China, selling more cars in China than it does in the US. (Personally I
think GM makes crappy cars. ) It is successful in China, because GM has been doing a
fantastic job of marketing its brand and American brands still enjoy prestige in China. And
Apple certainly wouldn't have become the first trillion dollar company without China's
market.
On a personal note, one of my relatives sells American medical devices to China and makes
decent money. It isn't easy though as competition is fierce. America is not the only country
that makes good medical devices. You have to compete with products from other countries.
With regard to the financial section, China has been extremely cautious of opening it up.
Can you blame China? Given how the Wall Street operates. China just didn't have expertise,
experience or regulations to handle a lot of these stuff. China has been preparing it,
though, and it is ready to reform the market.
Beijing pushes ahead with opening up its financial sector despite trade
tensions.
In "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" , the first sentence of the book is "
話說天下大勢，分久必合，合久必分.
It can be roughly translated as "Under the heaven the general trend is : what is long
divided, must unite; what is long united, must divide".
I believe in my lifetime China and Taiwan will unite again, and North Korea and South
Korea will become One Korea.
Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a 14th-century historical novel attributed to Luo
Guanzhong. It is set in the turbulent years towards the end of the Han dynasty and the
Three Kingdoms period in Chinese history
What is wrong with less 'inventiveness'? Do we really need a software update every 1 or 2
years? Just think, for example, how annoying the 'microsoft office ribbon' is for most of its
adult and serious users who would prefer good-old drop-down menus! Or do we really need to
change our clothes and phones every year and renew our furniture every decade because the
preferred style is changing? The vast majority of the world, especially those areas where
communitarian family models were the norm at some point in time, would embrace a little
stability over coping with each unnecessary 'invention'. For the Anglo-Saxon world, marked by
the 'absolute nuclear family', on the other hand, stability and predictability is a nightmare
and an assault on their precious individuality. Hence, the tension between the US-led bloc of
English-speaking nations and China-Russia-led Eurasia is no surprise, but rather the natural
outcome of the cultural fabric of each bloc. A world succumbing to the Chinese vision would
definitely be more dull, but more stable and foreseeable as well.
This has been an excellent article along with some excellent commentary. It's difficult to
get a clear picture of what's actually happening in China and every little bit helps. Two of
my kids went to Ivy League schools and when we were doing the drive to check them all out,
they were filled with Asians. The Chinese I deal with are very materialistic and appear to
base their importance on wealth and position. One poor Chinese kid I know who works as a
mechanic tells me Chinese girls won't even date him because of his status. Of course I live
in NY where most people are materialistic so it's hard to tell if that's a Chinese trait or
not. They do appear to be a very smart, hard driven people and there's a whole lot of them,
so there's a chance we start seeing them replace our present elite in the near future.
One poor Chinese kid I know who works as a mechanic tells me Chinese girls won't even
date him because of his status.
so it's hard to tell if that's a Chinese trait or not.
Yes that is a trait, Rich, and though somewhat prevalent in America too, the Chinese seem
to have no respect for guys that work with their hands. To me, that's shameful. They respect
the rich conniving businessman over the honest laborer.
I'd like to see one of the China-#1 commenters on here, or even Fred Reed*, argue with me
on that one. The British-descended especially, but all of white American culture has a
respect for honesty. That is absolutely NOT the case with the Chinese, whether living in
China or right here. See Peak Stupidity on DIY's in China vs.
America – Here is Part 1 .
* You're not gonna gain this kind of knowledge in a couple of weeks and without hanging
with Chinese people, though.
Socially China has a great advantage over America in that, except for the Muslims of
Xinjiang, it is pretty much a Han monoculture. Lacking America's racial diversity, its
cities do not burn, no pressure exists to infantilize the schools for the benefit of
incompetent minorities, racial mobs do not loot stores, and there is very little street
crime.
America's huge urban pockets of illiteracy do not exist. There is not the virulent
political division that has gangs of uncontrolled Antifa hoodlums stalking public
officials. China takes education seriously, as America does not. Students study, behave as
maturely as their age would suggest, and do not engage in middle-school politics.
Agreed. China is not burdened by the abomination of cultural and racial strife. The United
States has lost trillions of dollars due to racial and cultural differences.
@DB Cooper I'm
not picking on, or arguing at all with, you in particular, Mr. Cooper, but let me chime in
about this whole Mainland China vs. Taiwan thing. The first thing to remember is, excepting
the original Taiwanese people who've been invaded left and right, these people are ALL
CHINESE. They will eventually get back together, as the Germans have, and (I'm in agreement
with another guy on this thread) the Koreans will.
Even the Chinese widow of Claire Chenault, the leader of the great American AVG Flying
Tigers who supported the Nationalist Chiang Kai-Shek, had worked for years enabling business
between Taiwan and the mainland. There is so much business between the 2 that any kind of war
would seriously impede, and right now, the business of China is business (where have I heard
that before?)
Another thing I can say about it is that it's sure none of America's business, at this
point. The Cold War ended almost 3 decades ago. We are beyond broke, and it does us nothing
but harm in thinking we must "defend" an island of Chinamen against a continent of Chinamen.
Let the Republic Of China and the People's Republic Of China save faces in whatever asinine
ways they see fit to. It's not a damn bit of America's business.
After they read Fred's article select any number of Chinese men and women at random and
tell them they are welcome to migrate to the US with no strings attached and at the same
time select any number of American men and women at random and tell them they will likewise
be welcomed by the Chinese. The proof should be in the pudding.
American propaganda plays a big part here. Plus more Chinese speak English than Americans
speak Mandarin.
What I mean is, you may not have looked at it in a while, but the last bunch of times I've
seen the "History Channel", it was all about one set of guys trying to sell their old crap to
another bunch of guys, and the drama that apparently goes with that the Pawn Stars .
Where history comes in, I have no earthly idea. I'd much rather be watching the Nazi Channel
over this latest iteration of that network. Better yet, though, I don't watch TV.
* I think from the Chongching vs. Chongqing thing (you were right, of course). I hope I am
remembering correctly.
@Simply Simon I
recently did a graduate degree at MIT, where there are a ton of Chinese students. They seem
to be proud of China's progress, but as far as I can tell, almost all of them want to remain
in the U.S.
@Realist
abomination of racial and cultural strife! Incredible! why is such diversity an abomination
and not an advantage?
Because America ripped off all the people who are in strife' currently..and never
addressed what such exploitation did to them socially ..making what could be an advantage a
so-called 'abomination'
if some of the trillions had been spent on the needs of the American people by building
essential physical and social infrastructure to meet popular need, then there would be no
strife, people would have opportunity and structures to do their business..there would be no
social loss and diversity would not be the problem that it is
the American system uses up people and discards them to the wayside when immediate
exploitation needs are met. but we all know this making that comment inaccurate, nonsense
really.
and again the 'strife has been going on so long that the elites should know it inside out
and be able to address it positively. that they have not means that they do not care about
the people period. they are prepared to let the strife go on and exploit that for profit and
social control too
@MIT Handle It's
the proof of the pudding. No matter how progressive China is the students value America's
freedom of speech, movement, and religious liberty to name a few of the things we cherish.
It just needs to cut military spending to 20-30% of its current crazy unsustainable
levels and invest some of the saved resources into science,
An idealist, and way off the mark. Empire's number one goal isn't a scientific one, but
rather a financial one. The entire purpose of the U.S. military is to secure, and shore up
Wall Street(White/Jewish) capitol on a global scale. Smedley Butler wrote about this very
fact in the 1930's, and it still remains just as true. The Cold War/Vietnam war wasn't fought
to battle a weak, retarded economic system such as communism, but rather to shore up
financial dominance – for the same reason the U.S. military is fixated on oil fields,
pipelines and other resources – Money!
Financial weapons(sanctions) can kill way more people than bombs, and(loan sharking-IMF World
Bank) can conquer more territory than armies(Central, South America, Africa, Greece, etc
)
And the goal is not to just remain the the financial dominant system, but more importantly,
to destroy any potential competition – this is what is putting Russia, China,
and the Eurasian economic system in Washington's cross hairs.
The U.S. military strategists have mentioned on many occasions that they are not afraid of
a larger military, but rather they are deathly afraid of a larger economy. If scientists are
needed for stated goals then so be it, but they are not the crucial factor.
@MBlanc46 Why
would China need US investment? They get massive investment from Singapore other wealthy
Asian countries.
There is massive remissions from Chinese in Canada, UK and Australia. China has the money to invest extensively in Africa. Recently the Philippines went to China for investment instead of the United States. The rest of the world has pretty much written the US as declining irrelevant former
Superpower in economic terms. It still has military power as Fred noted but you cannot take
over foreign economies with a military.
You say all that but Fuji Chinese took over the economies of Philippines (A US ally no
less), Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam (Less so because the Vietnamese hate the
Chinese).
If the Koreans or Japanese did not hate the Chinese so much, they would probably take over
their economies as well.
The real Chinese power is not IN China. It is with Fuji Chinese merchants in Southeast
Asia.
Petty greed? And this is not rampant in Israel, US, Russia, Latin America .
@Jason Liu The
most anti-China people I've ever spent time with were the incredibly successful Chinese
diaspora in SE Asia. I found their contempt shocking. Chinese people were made the butt of
their jokes even on seemingly random topics. Your post offers an explanation.
I'm much more positive about your (?) country. I really liked it. But it does give me
pause for thought whenever familiarity breeds contempt.
My own little annoyance came recently. I had reason to download WeChat. It was the easiest
way to coordinate some business. When I later tried to delete my account, I found I could
not. After searching for an answer, I read that I had to email the company and was certainly
not guaranteed a response nor any action. That put the first line of their marketing about
"300 million" users into perspective.
Another anecdotal thing I've noticed. There used to be lots of Chinese restaurants in
London and very few Japanese, Korean, Thai and Vietnamese. There are now more of all of the
latter near me, and the Chinese restaurants are generally very low quality holdouts, probably
surviving by holding long cheap leases. People really like the other cultures, especially
Korea and Japan, not so much the Chinese – a strange fact given the history of East
Asia.
More relevant comparisons might be South Korea and Taiwan
Neither comparisons are exactly relevant. These two countries are tiny compared to
China. But more importantly, America took both of them entirely under its wings, due to
specific geopolitical conditions. Without the Korean and Vietnam wars, China-US thaw might have happened earlier, who
knows. Godfree isn't wrong when he points out that China was under complete embargo. It's not
like they had much of a choice other than central planning.
@Jason Liu
Brilliant, Jason! Now, what does he have to fear from giving the Uigurs and Tibetans the
right of self-determination instead of following the Israeli model and sending swarms of Han
in?
And why the threat of war over every square inch along the Indian border, where the people
are definitely not Han?
Why this greedy insanity, when if the idiot could learn the meaning of reconciliation
China would zoom ahead at record speed! Is he a Jew in disguise?
@Tyrion 2I
worked for Chinese-Filipinos and this is really 100% true.
The ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia are the most heartless capitalists on earth.
China has a government that can do things: In 2008 an 8.0 quake devastated the region
near the Tibetan border, killing, according to the Chinese government, some 100,000 people.
Buildings put up long before simply collapsed
Well what the Chinese government could not do is prevent the corruption that
allowed many of these collapsed buildings to be constructed from poor materials and without
regard for earthquake-related building codes.
That an overall mediocre country like China can be held up as a paragon of efficiency and
achievement to an American audience only speaks to the desperate rot afflicting America
itself. China has not managed to produce any internationally competitive products of any
complexity such as cars or airplanes; and to the extent it is beginning to succeed, this is
due to foreign investment and theft of IP. Meanwhile, South Korea has shown the world how
it's done properly.
In terms of economic systems, the Chinese are clearly superior. China runs a large
economic surplus
Up to now on the backs of poorly paid/overworked peasants. Shot a big hole in your article
right away. Damn and I don't get paid for this?!? (Grin)
PS. Intelectual theft of mostly Western knowledge. Snap! Second hole shot.
I need to get an agent, I'm soooo good I should be in charge of Face the Nation. (Smile) But
I would keep the lovley Margaret Brennan as the host. (Grin)
1. China's one-child policy did not come about as a sort of attempt at eugenics. It came
about because the previous six-child policy ("strength through numbers") was a colossal
failure, and the resulting poverty nearly tore the communist state apart at the seems. So
often governments insist on rapidly growing the population, and then when they get their
wish, they realize that a massive number of hungry and angry people leads not to strength but
to weakness. Just look at what happened when the Syrian government tried that
2. China peaceful? Not hardly. China is peaceful now because most people are doing OK.
Back when population was pushing at the limits – during Mao's early phase, and before
– when people were chronically malnourished and living in mud – no, the Chinese
people were not peaceful.
3. Again, numbers do not always translate into strength. India looks to surpass China in
total population, and they will be lucky just to avoid collapse.
4. Another thought: China is essentially ethnically pure Han Chinese. This might make
revolts possible, as the people find it easy to band together. Not so in India, which is a
massive pastiche of 100′s of different racial and ethnic groups – which are too
busy competing with each other to band together. There is an old saying that the worst
poverty that a people will accept before revolting, is exactly what they will end up with.
Could part of China's strength be the fear of the elites that, if the people are crushed too
much, that things could fall apart?
Regarding economic and scientific advancements with which no one at the time could
effectively compete, China sounds a bit like Germany prior to England, Russia and the United
States combining economic and military resources to destroy it.
@Realist That
isn't true. There are thousands of us now in Asia.
White males are everywhere in Asia doing every kind of business. I've been here for years.
Can some ethnic Han Chinese in the know give us the scoop on this:
Are Han Chinese merchants, bankers getting back on top in places like Vietnam,
Indonesia? There were huge anti Chinese riots in Indonesia in the 1960s and Han Chinese Merchants
were singled out for ethnic cleansing by victorious Vietnamese Communists in ~ 1975 –
the first Vietnamese boat people were Han Chinese merchants.
My take is that the Han Chinese in China and elsewhere in Asia are a lot like Japanese
nationalist in the 1930s and Jewish merchants/bankers forever.
In all of this Chinese sphere of influence ares of Asia I think 2018 USA has pretty much
nothing to offer except maybe playing balance of power to contain China and yes, have
military alliances with all the countries in Asia that are not mainland China – I'm
sure the Vietnamese want us back to militarize the Vietnam/China border – and we're
good at that sort of thing, but we absolutely can not and will not control, protect our own
Southern border.
Nov 28, 2018 Belt & Road Billionaire in Massive Bribery Scandal
The bribery trial of Dr. Patrick Ho, a pitchman for a Chinese energy company, lifts the
lid on how the Chinese regime relies on graft to cut Belt and Road deals in its global push
for economic and geopolitical dominance.
@nickels When was
the last time Western Christianity demonstrated any moral conduct toward other nations? Was
it England and the US fire-bombing German cities filled with civilians, followed by dropping
two nuclear bombs on a defeated nation?
as the US tries to garrison the world. Always favoring coercion, Washington now tries to
batter the planet into submission via tarifffs, sanctions, embargos, and so on.
"and so on" ? Why not just be honest Fredo? Without tariffs, the lot of the American working class would eventually fall to the level
of the rest of the Third World's teeming billions of near-starving wretches. As the one
percent continued to move all its manufacturing to the slave labor wage rates of China and
Mexico, et al.
By imposing tariffs on the products that the internationalist scumfucks build in China and
elsewhere, it tends to encourage the production of these things domestically, thereby
protecting the ever falling wages of the reviled American working class. Also China engages
in policies that are specifically intended to bolster China, like protectionist economics.
Whereas the ZUS does the opposite, its elite favoring policies that specifically fuck over
the despised American citizen in favor of anyone else.
So Trump's tariffs are one of the few things he's actually doing right. At least if you're
not one of those internationalist scumfucks who despise all things working class
American.
As for
"US tries to garrison the world. Always favoring coercion, Washington now tries to batter
the planet into submission sanctions, embargos,"
That is all being done on behalf of the Zionist fiend who owns our central bank. Duh.
What would be good, is for the ZUS to tell the Zionists to fuck off –
- returned to being the USA (by ending the Fed), and imposed massive tariffs on any
industry that off-shored its manufacturing. Hell, any industry that threatens the well-being
of our domestic industries. That pay domestic taxes and employ Americans.
This is the kind of thing China does, and if though some miracle our treasonous government
scoundrels were all to get hanged by lampposts on the glorious Day of the Rope, perhaps then
we'd do the same.
A wise dictator is great for the country, but Xi is not wise. He is a stubborn old man
stuck in the past who is clearly not listening to advisers. He has overplayed his hand,
confronted the US 10~20 years too early, *
When was the last time China sent gunboats or spy planes to murikka's doorstep ?
[hint] fukus have been doing that since the day of Opium war.]
Who started the trade war anyway ?
*damaged China's image out of some paranoid fear of Uyghurs,*
Tell that to the victims of CIA sponsored Uighurs head choppers
[1]
*and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead driving
them further into the arms of the Americans.*
[sic]
I've posted many times here and MOA, a tally of all panda huggers PM/prez in EA,
SA, SEA .,who were ousted/liquidated by fukus shenanigans. [2]
True to form, fukus turned around to accuse China .of ' driving all its friends into
the arm of the murikkans'
fukus have many sins.
but their vilest depravity must surely be . Robbery crying out robbery.
There's this sanctimonious journo from BBC , who 'boldly' confront a Chinese diplomat,
' Do you realise your assertive/aggressive policies are driving all your friends away/
/ .'
what a prick !
[1]
Ron frowns on image posting,
but very often a picture is worth a thousand words.!
P.S.
YOUR critique might be very PC and earns you hundreds of up votes, but its all a load of
bull.
Trouble is, the mushroom club members have been kept in the dark and fed bullshit so long,
bull is exactly what they enjoy most. hehehheh
@Achmed E. Newman
So Mao's Cultural Revolution to elevate the status of workers and peasants didn't have any
lasting effect?
I seem to remember from Historian David Hackett Fisher how in the British American
colonies craftsmen who work with their hands such as tinsmith/silversmith Paul Revere were
highly regarded and enjoyed status due to recognition of the value of their work to society,
with honest skilled workers enjoying status as a calling equal to religious and government
leaders.
I also remember from somewhere the idea that countries with thriving middle classes were
countries that acknowledged and valued the work of blue collar and even unskilled labor,
while those that don't value the work of the "lower classes" are the ones stuck with a rich
elite, and poverty for the masses.
@Durruti Nah,
humor doesn't come across too well, or you missed my "dictator" signature – your
language, if you will recall. That's where the "or else" came from. You do need to calm down,
as we are pretty much on the same side here.
Don't mind the Commies on here – it was much worse under the previous 2 Fred Reed
posts on China.
OK, pre-emptive apologies here for any more wrong interpretations
Great comments. I can only add (1) Here in Calif the Chinese-Americans I know all seem to
love vegetables, and are lean. I wish I could be more like that. New Year's Resolution. (2)
Harvard downgrades Asian-American applicants because of the "personality" factor of being
decent. I think our culture is in trouble if we are penalizing students for being polite,
genial, decent.
Answer: To replace WW 2, which was the best thing that ever happened to the US economy,
allowing it to recover from an economic depression that would have otherwise been permanent.
The US started the Cold War like they started all other wars in which they've been engaged,
including the current war on terror.
@Random
Smartaleck As I understand it the ROC and the PRC share the view that the South China Sea
islands are Chinese even though they don't entirely agree how to define China.
So Mao's Cultural Revolution to elevate the status of workers and peasants didn't
have any lasting effect?
Noooooo it didn't. [/George Castanza mode]
Actually, wait, it didn't have ANY effect to elevate ANYONE, besides those elevated onto
the stage to get pig blood poured on them sort of a poor man's Carrie scene.
Anyway, Mark, whatever you remember from your David Hackett Fischer (sorry that I'm not
familiar) along with your last paragraph sound like pretty good explanations. Though China
has a pretty large middle class now, it's NOT your father's middle class. I don't know if it
could ever be a very trusting society, no matter how much money the median Chinafamily
has.
If you read Mein Kampf, you'll find that Adolph Hitler held similar views regarding German
citizenship, with the first requirement being that you must be of German blood, followed by
meeting various physical, civic and educational requirements prior to anyone becoming a
citizen of Germany, including those born in Germany. The idea that there could be any such
thing as a Black German struck him as preposterous.
(2) Harvard downgrades Asian-American applicants because of the "personality" factor
of being decent. I think our culture is in trouble if we are penalizing students for being
polite, genial, decent.
If you don't already, SafeNow, you should read the archives (or current writings) of Mr.
Steve Sailer, right here on this very site. He has been all over this stuff for years –
I think that the college admissions/high-school quality/graduation rates/etc by race, IQ etc.
is close to an obsession for him, but the posts are usually pretty interesting.
As to this specific point of yours, my answer is that this is the way Harvard keeps the
black/hispanic/other special people's numbers up where they want them along with Oriental
numbers down where they want them. That personality thing is just a way of putting "vibrant"
young people ahead. I don't like vibrancy a whole lot myself, unless there are kegs of beer
involved and only on the weekends. That is a problem for some of the Oriental young people,
as they can't drink as much as they would like – I'm not sure if it's allergies or
not.
BTW, I'd be remiss in not letting you know that the blog owner himself, Mr. Unz, is
involved in a lawsuit about Harvard admissions and has also written a whole lot about
this.
Oh, on your (1), agreed about the tons of vegetables, but they do not consider anything
without rice a meal. Rice can be OK, but when you eat lots of the white rice, with its very
high Glycemic Loading, you can balloon up fast. Not as many of the Oriental girls I see in
America and China are as slim as the way it used to be.
The sheer amount of shadow debt outstanding is huge. 250 to 300% of GDP by some
estimates.
The amount of shadow debt is probably exaggerated: all that extra cash would either
increase China's inflation rate or else greatly boost the import of goods. The Chinese
inflation rate is reasonable, as is the quantity of imports (nowhere near GDP).
As Digital Samizdat said, China's debt is mostly internal; the country's development was
largely due to her own efforts.
@Godfree Roberts
You continue to use bad statistics. World Bank specialists know more than you do. Ordinary
Chinese know that their living standards lagged terribly under Chairman Mao. The most
important changes came after he died.
Deng Xiaoping traveled to Southeast Asia in November 1978. Rather than telling the
Southeast Asians about China's "incredible advances," he sought to learn from Singapore's
progress and listened intently to Lee Kuan Yew, who told Deng that China must re-open
international trade, move toward privatization, and respect market forces. Farmers were given
greater choice in planting crops and, after meeting production quotas, were allowed to sell
surplus produce on the free market. Starvation deaths declined. Widespread privatization
began in the 1990s. China eventually acceded to the World Trade Organization. Economic growth
took off as economic freedom increased from less than 4 to more than 6 on a 10-point scale.
(Hong Kong and Singapore are close to 9 on this scale, and the US is about 8.) Human capital,
which China has in abundance (more so than the US) is more than important than economic
freedom, once a minimum of economic freedom (at least 6 on a 10-point scale) is attained, but
economic freedom below 4 (as in pre-1979 China or today's Venezuela or North Korea) does not
lead to much improvement in living standards.
@Simply Simon
China is still a developing country: the average per capita income is lower than Mexico's
level. (China is growing faster than Mexico, of course.) However, because China has so many people, the country as a whole can do great things.
tar all whiteys as white trash supremacists, even tho there's an army out there.
what is that? another gratuitous smear? Here's a clue: Not wanting to see your nation- whether it be Chinese or Palestinian or
German – flooded and overcome by foreigners- does not make you a Chinese or Palestinian
or German "supremacist". K? It simply means that you are sane and of sound mind and
psychological health. Only the insane would agitate to fund an army of foreign invaders to
overcome your nation and people. That, or having an ((elite)) that resents, envies and
despises your people, and desires to see them replaced and bred out and overcome.
Being an American, we're acutely aware of the loss suffered by the Amerindian tribes when
whitey overcame them.
But somehow I can't imagine anyone telling an Apache that his desire to preserve the lands
they had conquered – as distinctly Apache lands, suggested that he was a vile and
reprobate "Apache supremacist". I can only imagine the look on Geronimo's face if some SJW
type of the day, were to scold him as an 'Apache supremacist!' for not laying down and
accepting his tribe's marginalization and replacement.
But in the insane world we live in, Germans and N. Americans and others, are all expected
to want to be overcome, or it can only mean that they must be terrible "white trash
supremacists".
It's so laughably deranged that it's literally, clinically insane, but you still hear such
raving nevertheless.
@neutral It's all
relative. Our freedom of speech , movement and religious liberty has been degraded but
obviously not to the degree the MIT students would prefer to return to China.
So you have a better plan than President Xi ? That's pretty fucking funny especially as your plan sounds like the talking points coming
out of some neocon stinktank
The world is moving on your dinosaur thinking where the irrelevant west is still the
reference point doesn't exist anymore except in the fervid imaginations of American
exceptionalists
Basically everything you said is bullshit China's diplomacy is light years ahead of the
west the country is in fact presenting all kinds of benevolence to neighbors, with mutually
beneficial development pulled along by the Chinese locomotive
Even Japan, a country in denial about its massive crimes of the past, is coming around to
the inevitable conclusion that it must live in CHINA'S neighborhood India joined the SCO last
year look up the SCO btw and think about which will be more relevant 10 or 20 years from now
this org or dying bullshit like Nato and the G7
As for supposedly 'challenging' the US that's pretty funny what's to challenge US doesn't
have a pot to piss in
US doesn't even have an industrial base anymore with which to produce weapons in case of a
real war with an actual enemy that doesn't wear sandals look up the Pentagon's 'Annual
Industrial Capabilities' report even the MIC's stuff comes from China, somewhere down the
supply chain that's fucking hilarious
US is is well on its way to finding out the hard way a financialized Ponzi economy that
has figured out how to de-industrialize a previously industrial country for untold riches for
a handful of parasites and actually being a strong and healthy country with actual
capabilities to PRODUCE REAL STUFF are two mutually exclusive goals
Look at the so-called 'trade war' most Americans don't even realize that tariffs on
Chinese goods only means that they will be paying an extra tax Chinese are laughing at this
'trade war' what happens to Walmart and Amazon if China just stops exporting stuff to the US
they can do that you know it will hit some Chinese billionaires but so what 70 percent of the
economy is in government hands and there is enough of a consumer base in China that even
eliminating all US exports is not going to do much damage
In the meantime GM is shutting down factories and cutting 15,000 high paying jobs but
setting up shop in China along with Harley and others LOL
You're obviously some brainwashed Chang Kai-shek acolyte keep on living in your make
believe disneyworld while a socialist and dynamic China grows tall all around you LOL
No amount of tariff will force China to go along with Trump's "fair trade" plan until Trump
does what his brilliant senior advisor Stephen Miller wants him to do -- stop issuing student
visas, plus EB5, H1b, OPT and green cards to Chinese nationals, step up raids of Chinese
birth hotels in CA, NY, WA, and rescind all passports issued to Chinese birth tourist babies.
That will send tens of thousands of Chinese citizens out on the streets protesting as they
are all eager to get the hell out with their ill gotten gains while they still can, and Xi
will bend over backwards in no time.
@FB I think your
diatribe just proved Jason Liu's point about mainland Chinese being thin skin, arrogant and,
I will also add, extremely dishonest and ill-mannered. It's why most people in Southeast Asia, Oz and NZ, including the Chinese diaspora, despise
the mainland Chinese.
@Anon Machine
tools make up a fair percentage of what China imports from Germany. Tools to make tools and
patterns for manufacturing should be considered an investment.
@FB FB gets it.
All the bluster of the disingenuous American billionaire sellouts and their xenophobic,
gullible domestic fanbase will amount to nothing.
Apart from nuking China or bribing their leaders (a la Yeltsin) to follow the Washington
Consensus, China will continue its economic development. And unlike dissolution era Soviet
Union, China isn't broken and desperate to seek the "knowledge" of neoclassical economists.
Unlike Plaza Accord Tokyo, China isn't under American occupation, and unlike Pinochet era
Chile and countless other minnows, the US establishment cannot hope to overthrow the Chinese
government.
Then we get the Anon dude who replied to FB. Way to ignore history and empirical evidence
and bolster yet another dimbulb argument with racism.
Jason Liu is a retard. You resorting to typical racism is acceptable to a number of this
site's resident know-nothings, but resorting to racism to bolster your non-argument is pretty
much the definition of stupidity.
Democracy fails simply because it is basically mob rule, and 51% of the mob isn't anymore
intelligent than the minor 49%. When the Supreme Court passed Citizens United (a misnomer)
which misinterpreted money as speech, the coup, that began with the assassination of JFK, was
complete. The effect has been devastating for the average Joe; completing the transfer of
power from the people to the corporations and the billionaire class, i.e. the bGanksters.
There's much to be said of a dictatorship, but where do we fit in with the selection, and
would the elite ever allow a new JFK? No, they wouldn't even tolerate a new Muammar Gaddafi.
So were stuck with the revolving door wannabes.
No western country allowed itself to be destroyed by its leadership as China did. This
includes Nazi Germany (and I do not consider USSR a western country).
Watch this video and reflect on the fatal flaw in Chinese culture and character.
@anonymous The
ethnic Chinese of Southeast Asia who control the economies of those places are Fuji Chinese,
not Han.
Fuji Chinese actually immigrated to Philippines and Malaysia and Indonesia to escape Han
persecution and the Han themselves were escaping the Manchu Chinese by migrating South into
the Fuji Province.
Virtually all the ethnic Chinese of Southeast Asia are from the Fujian Province. This is especially true of the Philippines. Virtually all Chinese-Filipinos are from Amoy
very near to Taiwan on the coast of the Fujian Province.
@someone But he
didn't resort to racism. And if anyone deserves the insulting "retard" it is you and FB for
not seeming to see the lack of relevance to what he said in your purported responses to Jason
Liu.
@Carroll Price
Hitler wrote that in jail before he was taking orders from psychics and astrologers. The
syphilis had not really set in yet at that point.
Black US GI's wreaked a fair amount of havoc in Germany on and off the bases. There were
always rapes, stolen cars, assaults around US army bases.
Of course so did some white American GI's. Dahmer is suspected-though he did not admit
it-of having killed people around the base where he was stationed. Ironically the country most adhering to this policy these days is Israel.
What is it with people whose grasp of Chinese history is limited to the Cultural Revolution?
Why do they comment here, and why are they somehow ignorant of the previous.. say 130 years
of Chinese history? Maybe, just maybe, Chinese society would not have collapsed if it weren't
for Opium traders destroying both China and India under the guise of free trade, de facto
colonization, then outright genocidal invasion and occupation from the Japanese military
regime?
And way to bag on any sort of collective action against the ossified rentier class. Cause
Marx/Engels/Lenin/Mao is a scourge of present-day societies for some reason?
The Cultural Revolution sure has an analogue in the US and its vassal states. The whole
neoliberal/militarist Reagan revolution and similar class war developments have wracked the
US and its minion states for FORTY YEARS. Yet few people seem to be aware of it. And others
correctly note the decline in living standards, then proceed to ignore the oligarchy
beneficiaries of neoliberalism/militarism, and instead are led to demagogues to blame
irrelevant scapegoats.
@FB If you
believe this arrogant rant counts as a responsive reply to Jason Liu then, assuredly you are
the candidate retard. And that is true notwithstanding the presence of intemperately stated
truths in your rant.
@denk And you are
a typical non-American who is obsessed with a country you have never been to because you have
been watching US films your entire life and your perception of reality is formed by
screenwriters in Los Angeles.
You secretly would like to go to the United States but have a distorted perception based
upon second-rate Hollywood films.
Typical of the Chinese Singaporean you are not Chinese and possibly have never been to
China. Your family has been in Singapore for three or four generations.
As a result you see white Americans and are secretly enthralled by them. Their towering
height and self-confidence and loud voices in Orchard Road STARBUCKS.
@Jeff Stryker
Jeff, your history sucks, your political economy sucks.
Filipino Chinese are Fujian, not Fuji–Not written nor pronounced like the Japanese
mountain or film.
Fujianese are Han. Their dialect is distinct, but they are as Han as the other southern
subgroups like the Hakka (who also compose a part of Sino-Filipinos) and Cantonese. Places
like Thailand and Malaysia have large numbers of Teochow and Cantonese, not Fujis or Fujians
or any other of your malapropisms.
What is it with your dipsh!t obsession with (incorrect) demographics and your piss poor
knowledge of EVERYTHING ELSE?
@Carroll Price
Yes, the comparison of late 19th century Germany and China today has been made quite often
with at least some plausibility for non specialist readers. Happily Miranda Carter's
marvellous New Yorker article doesn't seem to have relevance to China's leadership today. See
"What happens when a bad tempered distractible doofus runs an empire".
@Realist I've
already said that no person not born in China can be a citizen.
The only Caucasians who are Chinese citizens are the descendants of Portuguese settlers in
Macau of which there is still a small community.
Philippines in particular would take a huge economic hit if every Western man living there
left. Other Asian countries would feel a similar affect to their economies.
Locals PREFER to work for Western men rather than the Chinese ethnics because Chinese
ethnics treat Malay employees like farm animals and pay a pittance.
I did not mention Thailand because the Chinese-Thai (I'm married to one and we have two
children) are no longer a distinct group and don't have the economy in a stranglehold like
they do in Philippines or Malaysia.
Cantonese have never been the businessmen that Fujian Chinese are in Southeast Asia and
live in piss-poor Chinatowns in Manila or Jakarta.
When we talk about ethnic Chinese economic dominance in Southeast Asia we are talking
about Fujian Chinese shopkeepers.
[You have been repeatedly warned that you leave far too many rambling, vacuous comments,
especially since so many of them demonstrate your total ignorance. Fewer and fewer of your
comments will be published until you improve your commenting-behavior or better yet
permanently depart for another website]
ATTENTION ALL CHINESE POSTERS (OR ETHNIC CHINESE WHO FANCY THEMSELVES AS SUCH)
You may be offended by my views but I have earned them. I've worked with ethnic Chinese in
Asia a long time.
I'm married to one. I have two children with one. They go to Chinese schools.
So I have a right to my cynical opinions.
Most of you see a bunch of loud American tourists in some local Starbucks and you think
you know everything about the West.
You know very little.
I at least have lived in squalor with ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia in the trenches
doing business with them.
Well what the Chinese government could not do is prevent the corruption that allowed
many of these collapsed buildings to be constructed from poor materials and without regard
for earthquake-related building codes.
That an overall mediocre country like China can be held up as a paragon of efficiency
and achievement to an American audience only speaks to the desperate rot afflicting America
itself. China has not managed to produce any internationally competitive products of any
complexity such as cars or airplanes; and to the extent it is beginning to succeed, this is
due to foreign investment and theft of IP. Meanwhile, South Korea has shown the world how
it's done properly.
Those buildings were built in a different era, when China was much poorer. When China gets
richer, the regulations will be strengthened and more effectively enforced. It's the same for
every country.
East Asian countries develop in stages. Today's China is like South Korea 20 years ago. 20
years ago, South Korea was like Japan 40 years ago. The difference is that while Japan and
South Korea can obtain Western technologies without problem, China has been under Western
military embargo since 1989.
You probably did not realize it, but China has burst onto the scene of some cutting edge
technologies such as super computer, the application of quantum physics, and space
technologies including China's own GPS system; not to mention dominating in ship-building,
the manufacturing of solar panel, LCD panel and LED light, cell phone including 5G
technology, electric vehicles and highspeed rail etc etc.
@someone Dude
you're never going to convince the koolaid gulping Unz whackadoodles with actual historical
knowledge and facts
They're Pavlovian reactions is to defend the rentier class that is driving them into the
ground talk about irrational and self-destructive they must love and worship the 0.01 percent
since they are voting for their good which in fact entails the death of the middle class and
ordinary folks by definition
What clowns they only spout what they have been spoonfed to spout marching blindly like
the proverbial lemmings off the cliff believe me, better men have tried to talk sense into
these morons, without effect see PCR
PS notice the flurry of anon retards here and they actually think I'm Chinese LOL
@Simply Simon
Most MIT graduates want to stay in the U.S. because it's a much richer country than China and
much easier to get ahead materialistically. After working 10-15 years in the U.S., you can
easily get a 4-bed room house with 2 nice cars in its garages in a decent neighborhood. What
can you get in China? You probably can only afford an apartment with a semi-decent car with
nowhere to park. It has little to do with free speech or politics.
@Anon You worship
at the altar of that incompetent demagogue Steven Miller. Not only are you a dimbulb racist,
you can't see through the thinnest veneer of an oligarch who harnesses the latent xenophobia
of the masses to ram through yet more regressive policies. His dipsh!t eugenicist immigration
policies are just a reflection of the same color/ethnicity bar which led to the deaths of his
relatives several generations ago.
You think banning individuals of a certain ethnicity are enough to make America Great
Again? That's gullible, even for this site.
Should have followed eugenics and banned your idiot fetus from ever hatching.
@someone Actually
I have to wonder if even the standard narrative about the 'terrible' cultural revolution has
anything to do with reality
I would love to see a Godfree Roberts essay on this subject, since I am far from anything
approaching a China scholar his essays on Mao were absolutely tremendous there can be no
doubt that there could have been no modern Chinese economic miracle had it not been for Mao's
Great Leap Forward
I did not mention Thailand because the Chinese-Thai are no longer a distinct group and
don't have the economy in a stranglehold like they do in Philippines or Malaysia.
According to Amy Chua in her book World on Fire , the Chinese make up 12% of
Thailand's population and they do still by and large control Thailand's economy, it's just
that it's very hard to tell them apart from native Thais because they've changed their names
to local Thai names, but those in the know can still tell because Chinese Thai last names
tend to be very long.
@FB I like
Godfree. He is a contrarian and certainly not afraid of voicing his opinions. He offers some
unique perspective on looking at China and this is very refreshing because I can say most of
the things the MSM on China is just nonsense and Godfree got some but not all of them right,
in my opinion.
As to Mao's Great Leap Forward, or Cultural Revolution for that matter, let's look at it
this way. If you pay attention to China's pundits talking about China in Chinese TV today you
get the impression that the Chinese government is very proud of what it has accomplished in
the last forty years. And it should be. Lifting hundreds of millions of people out of abject
poverty and transforming China to today's situation like what Fred described in such a short
span is no easy feat. These Chinese pundits always talk about 'Reform and Opening Up' all the
time. This is the phrase they used most often. But 'Reform and Opening Up' refers to the
policy Deng implemented when he took over. I have yet to see anybody praising the Great Leap
Forward and Cultural Revolution in Chinese TV. To the extent that it was brought up on very
rare occasion, it was brought up in passing but never elaborated. It is as if the history of
Communist China started in 1979 instead of 1949. May be it has some dirty laundry it doesn't
want to air? The CCP has officially declared Mao's legacy as 70% good and 30% bad. What's
that 30% bad about?
I am convinced that the standard narrative about the 'terrible' cultural revolution is
close to reality. utu posted a video on China's Great Leap Forward on this thread. Do you
think the video is CGI graphics?
@Anonymous Amy
Chau got a good many things about her own Chinese-Filipino people wrong, I place little stock
in what she says about Thailand. Or even about the Philippines.
She is only relevant for touting herself as Chinese when her family has been in the
Philippines for generations-that reflects how at odds Chinese-Filipinos are with the
predominant population and also why the Indonesians and Malaysians have carried out savage
pogroms from time to time.
Worse in the Philippines is Chinese-Filipino involvement in meth. They make it and
distribute it and import it from China. The drug war in Philippines is entirely the result of
Chinese. And Tiger Mom is unlikely to bring that up in her wildly self-congratulatory books
which also focus on German Jews because she is married to one.
Chinese do not control the Thai economy to anywhere near the extent that they control the
economy of the Philippines or other countries. Thailand has actively forced the Chinese to
assimilate to a degree and at any rate they are probably the most clever of the Southeast
Asians.
Chinese immigrants also fair best in countries broken up by colonialism like Philippines
by Spain or Malaysia by Brits where they can slide in during post-colonial confusion.
*And why the threat of war over every square inch along the Indian border, where the
people are definitely not Han?*
Pleeeeze,
Show me ONE instance of China threatening war on India.
*In the NEFA, China seemed tacitly to have accepted the Indian claim and the fact of
indian occupation, even though this meant the loss of a very large and valuable territory
populated by Mongoloid people and which in the past had clearly belonged to Tibet. It had
come into Indian hands only as a result of British expansionism during China's period of
historical weakness, a fact firmly suggested by the very name of the frontier Beijing had
tacitly accepted as the line of control -- the McMahon Line. *
The tributes to former President George H.W. Bush, who died on Friday aged 94, have been
pouring in from all sides of the political spectrum. He was a man "of the highest character,"
said his
eldest son and fellow former president, George W. Bush. "He loved America and served with
character, class, and integrity," tweeted former U.S. Attorney and #Resistance icon Preet
Bharara. According to another former president, Barack Obama , Bush's life was "a
testament to the notion that public service is a noble, joyous calling. And he did tremendous
good along the journey." Apple boss Tim Cook said : "We have lost a great
American."
In the age of Donald Trump, it isn't difficult for hagiographers of the late Bush Sr. to
paint a picture of him as a great patriot and pragmatist; a president who governed with "class"
and "integrity." It is true that the former president refused to vote for Trump in 2016,
calling him a " blowhard ," and that he eschewed the
white nationalist, "alt-right," conspiratorial politics that has come to define the modern
Republican Party. He helped end the Cold War without, as Obama said , "firing a shot." He spent
his life serving his country -- from the military to Congress to the United Nations to the CIA
to the White House. And, by all accounts, he was also a beloved grandfather and
great-grandfather to his 17 grandkids and eight great-grandkids
.
Nevertheless, he was a public,
not a private, figure -- one of only 44 men to have ever served as president of the United
States. We cannot, therefore, allow his actual record in office to be beautified in such a
brazen way. "When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that
only praise be permitted but not criticisms," as my colleague Glenn Greenwald has argued
, because it leads to "false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts."
The inconvenient truth is that the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush had far more in
common with the recognizably belligerent, corrupt, and right-wing Republican figures who came
after him - his son George W. and the current orange-faced incumbent - than much of the
political and media classes might have you believe.
Consider:
... ... ...
He made a dishonest case for war . Thirteen years before George W. Bush lied about weapons
of mass destruction to justify his invasion and occupation of Iraq, his father made his own set
of false claims to justify the aerial bombardment of that same country. The first Gulf War, as
an investigation by journalist Joshua Holland
concluded , "was sold on a mountain of war propaganda."
For a start, Bush told the American public that Iraq had invaded Kuwait " without provocation or warning
." What he omitted to mention was that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had given an
effective
green light to Saddam Hussein, telling him in July 1990, a week before
his invasion, "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement
with Kuwait."
Then there is the fabrication of intelligence. Bush deployed U.S. troops to the Gulf in
August 1990 and claimed that he was doing
so in order "to assist the Saudi Arabian Government in the defense of its homeland." As Scott
Peterson wrote in the Christian Science
Monitor in 2002, "Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated that up to
250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key U.S. oil
supplier."
Yet when reporter Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times acquired her own commercial
satellite images of the Saudi border, she found no signs of Iraqi forces; only an empty desert.
"It was a pretty serious fib," Heller told Peterson, adding: "That [Iraqi
buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't
exist."
President George H. W. Bush talks with Secretary of State James Baker III and Secretary of
Defense Dick Cheney during a meeting of the cabinet in the White House on Jan. 17, 1991 to
discuss the Persian Gulf War. Photo: Ron Edmonds/AP
He committed war crimes. Under Bush Sr., the U.S. dropped a whopping 88,500
tons of bombs on Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, many of which resulted in horrific
civilian casualties. In February 1991, for example, a U.S. airstrike on an air-raid shelter in
the Amiriyah neighborhood of Baghdad killed at least
408 Iraqi civilians . According to Human Rights Watch , the Pentagon knew
the Amiriyah facility had been used as a civil defense shelter during the Iran-Iraq war and yet
had attacked without warning. It was, concluded HRW, "a serious violation of the laws of
war."
U.S. bombs also destroyed essential Iraqi civilian
infrastructure -- from electricity-generating and water-treatment facilities to food-processing
plants and flour mills. This was no accident. As Barton Gellman of the Washington Post
reported in June 1991: "Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to
create postwar leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself. Planners
now say their intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair
without foreign assistance. Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and
interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as 'collateral' and unintended, was
sometimes neither."
Got that? The Bush administration deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure for
"leverage" over Saddam Hussein. How is this not terrorism? As a Harvard public health team
concluded in June 1991, less than four months after the end of the war, the destruction of
Iraqi infrastructure had resulted in acute malnutrition and "epidemic" levels of cholera and
typhoid.
By January 1992, Beth Osborne Daponte, a demographer with the U.S. Census Bureau,
was estimating that Bush's Gulf War had caused the deaths of 158,000 Iraqis, including
13,000 immediate civilian deaths and 70,000 deaths from the damage done to electricity and
sewage treatment plants. Daponte's numbers contradicted the Bush administration's, and she was
threatened by her superiors with dismissal for releasing " false information. " (Sound
familiar?)
He refused to cooperate with a special counsel . The Iran-Contra affair , in which the
United States traded missiles for Americans hostages in Iran, and used the proceeds of those
arms sales to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua, did much to undermine the presidency of Ronald
Reagan. Yet his vice president's involvement in that controversial affair has garnered far less
attention. "The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete," wrote Special
Counsel Lawrence Walsh, a former deputy attorney general in the Eisenhower administration, in
his final report on the
Iran-Contra affair in August 1993.
Why? Because Bush, who was "fully aware of the Iran arms sale," according to the special
counsel, failed to hand over a diary "containing contemporaneous notes relevant to Iran/contra"
and refused to be interviewed in the later stages of the investigation. In the final days of
his presidency, Bush even issued
pardons to six defendants in the Iran-Contra affair, including former Defense Secretary
Caspar Weinberger -- on the eve of Weinberger's trial for perjury and obstruction of
justice. "The Weinberger pardon," Walsh pointedly noted, "marked the first time a president
ever pardoned someone in whose trial he might have been called as a witness, because the
president was knowledgeable of factual events underlying the case." An angry Walsh accused
Bush of "misconduct" and helping to complete "the Iran-contra cover-up."
I knew there was something wrong with Donald Trump's presidency the day he bombed the
airbase at Al-Shairat in Syria. It was a turning point. I knew it was a mistake the moment he
did it and argued as such at the time.
No act by him was more contentious.
It cost me hundreds of followers gained throughout the campaign who wanted to believe Trump
was playing 4-D chess. My Periscopes went from being events to afterthoughts.
Those that left needed to believe this because they had invested so much in him.
They had to believe he was playing some deep game with Putin to bring peace to the
region.
He wasn't.
I was right and truth is painful. The need for him to be Orange Jesus was so strong they
created Qanon and the 'science' of political horoscope as slowly but surely Trump was stripped
of all of his power except that of complaining about how unfair it all is.
That day he did something in the moment, with bad intelligence and let fly with tomahawks
which Russian and Syrian air defenses misdirected and/or shot down.
Empty President
His goal was to show everyone there was a new, strong sheriff in town.
All it did was weaken him.
The neocons praised him as presidential. They began to get their hooks in him then. But
truly, Trump was destroyed before he took office, giving up Michael Flynn, expelling Russian
diplomats and compromising his cabinet picks.
Because making war is the only true test of a President to the laptop bombardiers who
control foreign policy. With that one act Trump's days as an independent agent in D.C. were
numbered.
And since then the hope has been that given the enormity of the opposition to his Presidency
he was still fighting for what he campaigned on -- no nation building, bring the empire home,
protect the borders, and clean up the corruption.
He's made a few minor changes but not enough to change the course of this country and, by
extension, the world.
The people want this change. Those with the power don't.
G-20 Ghost
So here we are with a pathetic Trump outclassed at the G-20, a meeting he should dominate
but instead is ushered around like a child, given poor earpieces and looking a little lost.
He's only allowed to have one meeting of note by his handlers, with China's Xi Jinping.
Because that meeting wasn't going to end with anything damaging to the long-term plan.
Trump's tariff game is tired and all it will do is hasten the demise of U.S. competitiveness in
the very industries he wants us to be competitive in.
Because tariffs are a band-aid on the real problems of bureaucracy, corruption, waste and
sloth within an economy. They are not a product of China stealing our technology (though they
have).
And that $1 trillion deficit Trump is running? Music to the ears of the globalists who want
the U.S. brought low. More military spending. More boondoggles the banks can cut a nice big
check to themselves for with funny money printed without risk. This can go on for a few more
years until it doesn't matter anymore.
Trump's folding on meeting Putin is the final nail in his presidency's coffin. He's not even
allowed to make statements on this issue anymore. That's for Sarah Sanders, Mike Pomposity and
John Bolt-head to do.
You know, the grown-ups in the room.
No. Putin and Trump met once when they weren't supposed to and since then Trump has been
getting smaller and smaller. Sure, he held some rallies for the mid-terms to shore up his base
for a few weeks while the Democrats stole more than a dozen House seats, three governorships
and a couple of Senate seats, but hey he's still working hard for no pay.
Please.
Trump needed to show some real moral courage and speak with Putin about the Kerch Strait
incident like men, not sulk in the corner over a couple of ships. And yet his still throws his
full support behind a butcher like Mohammed bin Salman because arms sales and Iran.
Putin, for his part, makes no bones about doing business with the Saudis. He knows that bin
Salman is creating a quagmire for Trump while driving the U.S. and European Deep State mad.
For this Secretary of Defense James Mattis calls Putin, " A slow learner." This is a
flat-out threat that Mattis has more coming Putin's way. But in fact, it is Mattis who is the
slow learner since he still thinks Putin isn't three steps ahead of him.
Which he is. The game is all about time and money. And thanks to Mattis and, yes, Trump,
Putin will win the war of attrition he is playing.
Because that is what has been going on here from the beginning. Iran, China and Russia know
what the U.S. power brokers want and they knew Trump would always cave to them. So, they knew
exactly how to get Trump to over-commit to a strategy that cannot and will not ever come to
fruition.
I warned that Trump's blind-spot when it comes to Iran was his weakness. I warned that he
would eventually justify breaking every foreign policy promise to fulfill his plan to unite the
Sunni world behind him and Israel by giving them Iran.
The End of the Beginning
Welcome to today. And welcome to the end of Trump's presidency because now he is
pot-committed to regime change while the vultures circle him domestically. He has become Bush
the Lesser with arguably better hair.
He has alienated everyone the world over with sanctions and tariffs, hence his desire to "
Get me out of here " as the G-20 wound down. No one believes he matters anymore. By tying
himself to the Saudis and the Israelis the way he has he, the master negotiator, has left
himself no room to negotiate.
And that is leading to everyone defying him versus cutting deals to carve up the world, end
the empire and come home.
Trump is not leading here. He is being led. And change requires leaders. He has been led
down the path so many presidents have, more militarism, more empire. Because when you're the
Emperor everyone is your enemy. This is the paranoia of a late-stage imperial mindset.
It certainly is the mindset of Trump's closest advisors - Mattis, Bolton and Pompeo.
So Trump's "America First' instincts, no matter how genuine, have been twisted into
something worse than evil, they are now ineffectual keepers of the status quo fueling ruinous
neoconservative dreams of central Asian dominance.
To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and
analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 230 Patrons on Patreon and see if
I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad.
His nose is wedged right up Adelson's & Bibi's ring-hole.
Even as we speak now, 100 drones crossed over from Turkey into Syria with French experts
modifying them to accept warheads of a chemical nature. Simultaneously the innovative British
military are providing miscellaneous WMD's/support to Jabhat-Al -Nusra in Idlib.
Time for Putin/Russia to take these cockroaches/vermin out in quick time, for their own
good.
Trump's grasshopper mind could be construed for severe Alzheimer's.
Trump boasted of how HE would "Make the US Military Great again" (as if it wasn't too big
to begin with..) and spent $16 billion EXTRA on 'defence,' yet now he suddenly flip-flopped
and calls defence spending "crazy."
Spot on, I completely agree with Luongo, and #metoo have been saying this for a long
time.
Trump's unstable and unhinged waffling, lying and flip-flopping (i.e. "4D chess") is
finally beginning to catch up with him and his presidency will not be marked with him being
the one who drained the swamp, but a presidency marked with a trail of destruction.
He has talked himself into so many corners, that it will be impossible to back out of
those corners....unless of course he turns the volume of his bullshitting, lying and waffling
up to 11.
"You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all of the
time."
It's easy to fool dumb American Trumptards, but it's not easy fooling the Russians, the
Europeans and the Chinese. They see right through his fake bravado and ********.
"I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with
President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a
major and uncontrollable Arms Race," Trump wrote. "The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this
year. Crazy!"
Another classic Tweet from Captain Bonespurs. No wall, no change to healthcare, no
immigration policy, no amazing trade agreements, no slavery, no mandatory mullets, no
mandatory bible study at school, no burning of witches. And now he is talking about reducing
the largest military budget in history.
Trump is finished. He had two years to replace Sessions and Rosenstein and have someone at
the DOJ appoint a Special Councils for each item to look into:
The Clinton Foundation
Uranium One Deal
Hillary's Email Server
The murder of Seth Rich
The Benghazi Consulate Disaster
The Democrats computer scandal with the Iwan brothers.
Bill Clinton giving China classified missile and sub technology
The unelected Deep State actors controlling the country.
Q is a total ******* fraud. Trump has 3 weeks before he is assraped and left bleeding on
the floor by the Democrats and the RHINO's in the senate. If he gets impeached, Pence will be
impeached and Nitwit Nancy becomes POTUS. And within 2 months of that happening, we will have
full balls out, open Civil War II.
"... This is why China's social credit system is chilling. It will create a nation of conformist cowards. China is spiraling back into the mindset that made it fall behind. A nation where everyone is too afraid to say his piece. New China may allow money-making, but when a society favors profits over freedom and conscience, it becomes crass, shallow, and materialistic. ..."
We do not really have freedom of speech. Say "ni ** er" once and you can lose a job of
thirty years. Or criticize Jews, Israel, blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, feminists, or
transsexuals.
There is direct censorship and indirect censorship. Direct censorship is what China has.
It prohibits certain kind of speech, period. Indirect censorship is what the US has in
increasing measure. You can say whatever, but if you say the 'wrong' thing, the consequences
are so dire(especially economically) that you are effectively tarred & feathered, shunned
and destroyed. Rick Sanchez found out how this works after he said Jews dominate in the
media. And CNN recently fired a black guy for defending Palestine at the UN.
Marc Lamont Hill dared to mention that 2018 is the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms that
wiped Palestine off the map and that the current Zionist regime uses Apartheid Policies in
Occupied West Bank as continuation of Western Imperialism that wages war on indigenous
nationalism of the Palestinian people. Jew-run CNN got rid of him, which goes to show that
Jews are holier than blacks(and certainly the long-suffering Palestinians).
Personally, I think there are some cases where firing-based-on-speech is warranted. If an
organization is inherently ideological, then it has every right to hire or fire people based
on their views and convictions. So, if National Review feels that one of its writers is too
leftist, he may be fired. Or a person that seems hostile to Zionism may be fired by
Commentary Magazine that is committed to Israel First Policy.
But most professions are non-ideological, and it seems utterly wrong to fire someone on
the basis of creed, conscience, or conviction. And progressives would have agreed with this
position in the 50s when many communists and fellow-travelers were either fired/blacklisted
or threatened with such, not least in Hollywood. Also, as long as a person performs his
duties well at work, what does it matter what he believes in his personal life? If one's
personal creed, ideology, or faith is the basis of whether he can have a job or use financial
services, then we no longer have a free society. According to Jewish-controlled PC, in order
for you to be able to work and live, it means you can't have certain personal beliefs.
Personal conviction and creed have been professionalized, i.e. no work and wages for people
with certain views.
Now, imagine if a business fires anyone suspected of being a Zionist on the basis that
Zionism is imperialism and commits 'genocide' against Palestinians. Would Jews tolerate this?
Of course not. And I would agree with Jews. No Jew should be fired for his Zionist beliefs
EVEN IF the owner of the business believes Zionism is evil. Richard Dawkins is virulently
anti-religious and believes religious faith is a mental disease of ignorance and hatred. But
if he owned a trucking company, should he fire people on the basis of their faith because he
believes religion is a 'hate system of the mind'?
[MORE]
Now, there are certain exceptions. Certain jobs are publicity-oriented and involve putting
forth an image. So, if a company wants to project a certain kind of image or message and IF
its representative or spokesman or spokeswoman is associated with certain kind of ideology, I
can see why the company would want to let that person go. If a company is about Family Values
and if it turns out that its representative is a wild swinger and promotes promiscuity, I can
see why the company would let that person go EVEN IF the person acts wild in his personal
life. But most jobs are not publicity-related, and it is simply wrong to deny someone work
and wages based on what he believes in his personal life.
This is why China's social credit system is chilling. It will create a nation of
conformist cowards. China is spiraling back into the mindset that made it fall behind. A
nation where everyone is too afraid to say his piece. New China may allow money-making, but
when a society favors profits over freedom and conscience, it becomes crass, shallow, and
materialistic.
Now, the Chinese may be pushing such a rule because they see the Free West as decadent and
degenerate as a result of excess freedom. But this is where the Chinese would be wrong. The
West rotted from lopsided freedom that favored the power and expression of certain groups
over others. West lost its sense of balance because voices of certain groups and interests
were effectively silenced. It's like ecology. If you get rid of certain species, the natural
balance goes out of whack and things fall apart. If you get rid of predators, it may seem
good for the prey animals, but in time, the herbivores multiply and eat up all the vegetation
and destroy their habitats. So, there has to be a balance of prey and predators in nature.
The problem of EU is that following WWII, the Right was effectively silenced because it was
associated with Nazism. Thus, leftist elements grew too strong and out-of-control. Now,
leftism is invaluable to modern society, but it needs to be balanced by rightism that is also
essential to social equilibrium. But suppression of the right led to overgrowth of leftism
that led to crazy stuff like May 68 lunacy that paved the way for current degenerate France.
When left and right were both well-represented, they had to compete to remain healthy and
strong. But once the left was allowed to totally dominate culturally and ideologically, it
grew decadent and degenerate from corruption and self-satisfaction.
So, if China thinks the West became crazy due to excess of free speech and freedom in
general, it would be wrong. The West grew sick from suppression of rightist freedoms and
expressions in favor of leftist ideology and obsessions. In the West, even the far-left was
protected in academia and media BUT the far-right was banned. Only the wussy cuck-right and
bland 'white bread' right were tolerated. If any rightist lurched slightly more rightward, he
was denounced as 'far right'. As Jonathan Haidt has argued, Western academia is suffering
from lack of real discourse and back-and-forth argumentation. Because the leftists are
protected from challenge by rightists, the former has grown lazy, corrupt, decadent, and
flabby. Their hysterics are really about cowardice and unwillingness to face real challenge
from the Right. They demand protection from being 'triggered' by wrongthink or 'hate speech'.
They rarely directly address the voices on the Right. They just go for lazy short-cut of
denouncing others as 'racist' or 'nazi'.
But the problem isn't merely ideological but ethnic. When Wasps(or Anglo-Americans) ruled
America, it was fair game to notice that (1) Anglos got the power (2) Anglos got the
privilege (3) Anglos got the connections (4) Anglos hogged the prestige. So, despite the
great power of Anglos, they came under scrutiny and criticism, not least by reformist Anglos
who thought criticism and self-criticism were good things. Thus, there was a lively debate
among Wasps, Irish Catholics, various ethnics, Jews, and others. Though blacks were
suppressed for most of US history, they too became vocal and offered their perspective and
made demands that had validity. In terms of social debate, the period from mid 50s to the mid
80s were probably the golden age of free speech and debate. With each year, there was more
push for free speech, and many sides had their say. But the worrying development in that
period was the growing sacralization of Jews and blacks. It was one thing to allow Jews and
blacks to make their case and join in the national debate. Surely, Jews and blacks had their
own grievances and legit demands. But, just as undeniable was the fact that Jews and blacks
also caused a lot of problems that harmed other groups. Jewish role in US foreign policy led
to fiasco in the Middle East, especially at cost to Palestinians. And even though the Civil
Rights Movement was a great event in US history(and there's no denying the injustices done to
blacks), it was also true that blacks posed a threat to other races because blacks are more
muscular and more aggressive by nature. So, once blacks got equal legal protections, they
used much of their freedom to attack, rape, rob, and murder other peoples, leading to white
flight among not only white conservatives but white liberals and Jews. So, in a truly free
society, not only would Jews and blacks get to have their say against goyim & whites but
goyim & whites would get to air their grievances against Jews and blacks. That way, all
sides would say their piece and all sides would be checked and balanced by healthy and
constructive counter-criticism.
But the consecration of Jews and blacks as holy-schmoly groups made this nearly impossible.
So, while Jews could scream about 'anti-Semites' and 'Nazis' endlessly -- Jews now cry 'nazi'
like the kid cried 'wolf' -- , we are not allowed to notice Jewish power, Jewish abuses, and
Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. And no matter how much crime and violence blacks commit,
we are supposed to see Negroes only through the rose-tinted glasses of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
and MLK sermons. And no matter how many whites(and non-blacks) fall victim to black robbery,
beatings, rapes, and murders, we are supposed to wake up Groundhogday-like and dream of
supposedly angelic Emmett Till.
When a group is sacralized in a supposedly secular society, the effect is essentially
theocratic. Jews and blacks are holy-schmoly in the US, and so, we can't have a honest debate
about the problems they cause. We can't talk about Jewish role in communism, Zionist role in
Middle East Wars, globalist Jewish economic looting of Russia in the 90s, and Neocon
recruitment of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. And it doesn't matter how many times blacks burn down
cities and assault/rob people. It is simply 'racist' to notice that blacks, being more
muscular and more aggressive, tend to commit far more crime and violence than other groups.
US has become essentially an ethno-theocracy where we must always speak of Jews and blacks in
hushed tones.
Of course, homos joined Jews and blacks in the holy-schmoly pantheon. Why? Because Jews
control media, academia, finance, and deep state. And Jews decided homos are their perfect
ally as fellow high-achieving minority elites. Because homos were made holy-schmoly(and
associated with holier-schmolier Jews), even cultural conservatives clammed up about the Homo
Agenda. They were afraid of being labeled 'homophobic', an especially bogus term cooked up by
Jews to imply that if you don't sufficiently honor and praise homos, you are suffering from
mental malady of phobic proportions. And so, homos & trannies and fecal penetration &
penis-and-ball-cutting were associated with 'rainbows' and 'pride'. Indeed, 'gay pride'
simply became 'Pride', as if to suggest the essence of pride = homo buggery and tranny
dick-cutting. And if you found homo-fecal-penetration and tranny penis-cutting to be gross
and sick and said so, you were blacklisted and fired worse than any Jewish communist during
the so-called 'McCarthy Era'. At least the HUAC blacklists ended in a few yrs. These Jewish
led PC blacklists last forever because Jewish Power has a near-Stalinist grip on media,
academia, and deep state.
The fact is Homomania-as-neo-religion(that festoons churches with 'gay colors') and 'Gay
Marriage' would never have become New Western Values IF there had been real free speech that
allowed all sides to have their say. If real free debate had been allowed on the Homo Agenda,
the lies and falsehoods could easily have been exposed. But, the Jewish-controlled media used
the 'rainbow' idolatry to elevate Homo-worship as a new religion in the West. If you were not
with the sacred program, you were a blasphemer, a 'homophobe' who must be
econo-excommunicated from work & wages. Or a bakery must be sued out of existence by the
'gay cabal' with the full backing of Jewish Supremacist law firms. Jewish Power treats decent
moral bakeries like Zionists treat Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. Jewish Power says 'my
way or the highway'.
In Europe, a continent with no legal protection of free speech, Jewish pressure led to
criminalization of speech deemed offensive to Jews and homos(and even African
migrant-invaders). In the US, where Constitution guarantees free speech, the culture of open
discourse was destroyed by indirect censorship and ethno-homo-theocracy. Even though Jewish
Power couldn't ban free speech, its control of media and finance meant they could destroy
anyone or any group that dared to be politically incorrect toward Jews, blacks, and homos.
Thus, anyone who wanted to keep his job or reputation had to clam up about certain things, no
matter how true or based on facts. Also, the sacralization of Jews, blacks, and homos meant
that they could spew any amount of hateful, rabid, and virulent venom at goyim, whites,
Christians, straight people, and etc. BUT they themselves were PROTECTED from critical speech
that dared to expose their corruption, abuses, and fraudulence. This is why the West grew
sick. Not from freedom but lopsided monopoly of freedom for certain groups, esp. Jews,
blacks, and Homos as the Holy-Schmoly Three.
Now, one could argue that China's censorship is preferable to American censorship because
China is about Chinese nationalists ruling over Chinese people. So, the main theme of
censorship is "Is it good for China as a whole?" In contrast, the US is a nation where the
Jewish 2% rules over 98% that is goyim. So, the central theme of American Censorship is "Is
it good for the 2% at the expense of the 98%?" Also, if China is about Chinese Majority
Pride, the overwhelming theme for the White American Majority is White Guilt and White Shame.
So, while Chinese government boosts Majority Chineseness, American government suppresses
Majority Whiteness(and even pushes policies to turn the white majority into just another
minority, as already happened in California, increasingly the land of oligarchs and helots,
the vision of BLADE RUNNER).
Still, censorship will hurt China too in the long run because a nation that penalizes
conscience and courage will result in increasing conformism and
crassness.
America's freedom of speech, movement, and religious liberty
Where do you get your news from, because America has absolutely neither of those. And
please spare the usual bullsh!t argument "censorship is only if the government does it".
America is HEAVILY censoring anyone who does not accept its hard left ideology, you speak
out against this you get deplatformed, you get censored, you lose your job and you life is
pretty much destroyed. The same applies to religion, you reject the near official religions
of homosexuality and racial equality and you will be punished for it.
But the internet has largely disabled the gigantic CIA fog-machine. Thousands of skilled
researchers quickly blow apart the propaganda line from the Deep State which is why there's
an hysterical reach these days to shut down the 'net (but still keep it open enough to sell
lots of stuff and nake money for the Predator Class).
Take the JFK assassination. One skilled researcher directs readers to the Warren
Commission, where buried deep inside one volume is a finding that Oswald's rife was
inoperable, certainly unable to function as a precise assassination weapon. Plus Oswald was a
lousy shot to begin with. Yet Military sharpshooters had to add parts just to site the weapon
and fire. This info in the WC pretty much excludes Oswald as the lone assassin. Without the
'net, how many people could find this info themselves.
9/11? Several researchers and web sites disclosed findings of a support network for the
alQ hijackers run by Saudi intelligence and the Royal family (the 28 pages inside the
Congressional 9/11 Inquiry); FBI informants providing financing, housing and other logistical
support to the hijackers; CIA knowledge that alQ had entered the US 18 months before 9/11 and
hid this knowledge etc.
Ditto for the OKC bombing (where local TV found bombs inside the Federal Building, which
blew away the FBI narrative about McVeigh)... ditto for the FBI role in handing out
explosives to the perps at the first WTC bombing etc. etc.
All this info, including news reports are up on the web even today... So with this kind of
info available for large numbers of people to find, the only tactic left for the deep state
psy-war operations to function is complete martial law in an Orwellian Police State. At that
point the game is over and the US collapses as a nation.
One month to the day after President Kennedy's assassination, the Washington Post published
an article by former president Harry Truman.
I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our
Central Intelligence Agency -- CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason
why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected
it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.
Truman had envisioned the CIA as an impartial information and intelligence collector from
"every available source."
But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting
conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to
established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such
intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.
Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all
intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as
President without department "treatment" or interpretations.
I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a
volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about
this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead
the President into unwise decisions -- and I thought it was necessary that the President do
his own thinking and evaluating.
Truman found, to his dismay, that the CIA had ranged far afield.
For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original
assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.
This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive
areas.
I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into
peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we
have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the
President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol
of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue -- and a subject for cold war enemy
propaganda.
The article appeared in the Washington Post's morning edition, but not the evening
edition.
Truman reveals two naive assumptions. He thought a government agency could be apolitical and
objective. Further, he believed the CIA's role could be limited to information gathering and
analysis, eschewing "cloak and dagger operations." The timing and tone of the letter may have
been hints that Truman thought the CIA was involved in Kennedy's assassination. If he did, he
also realized an ex-president couldn't state his suspicions without troublesome
consequences.
Even the man who signed the CIA into law had to stay in the shadows, the CIA's preferred
operating venue. The CIA had become the exact opposite of what Truman envisioned and what its
enabling legislation specified. Within a few years after its inauguration in 1947, it was
neck-deep in global cloak and dagger and pushing agenda-driven, slanted information and
outright disinformation not just within the government, but through the media to the American
people.
The CIA lies with astonishing proficiency. It has made an art form of "plausible
deniability." Like glimpsing an octopus in murky waters, you know it's there, but it shoots
enough black ink to obscure its movements. Murk and black ink make it impossible for anyone on
the outside to determine exactly what it does or has done. Insiders, even the director, are
often kept in the dark.
For those on the trail of CIA and the other intelligence agencies' lies and skullduggery,
the agencies give ground glacially and only when they have to. What concessions they make often
embody multiple layers of back-up lies. It can take years for an official admission -- the CIA
didn't officially confess its involvement in the 1953 coup that deposed Iranian leader Mohammad
Mosaddeq until 2013 -- and even then details are usually not forthcoming. Many of the so-called
exposés of the intelligence agencies are in effect spook-written for propaganda or
damage control.
The intelligence agencies monitor virtually everything we do. They have tentacles reaching
into every aspect of contemporary society, exercising control in pervasive but mostly unknown
ways. Yet, every so often some idiot writes an op-ed or bloviates on TV, bemoaning the lack of
trust the majority of Americans have in "their" government and wondering why. The wonder is
that anyone still trusts the government.
The intelligence agency fog both obscures and corrodes. An ever increasing number of
Americans believe that a shadowy Deep State pulls the strings. Most major stories since World
War II -- Korea, Vietnam, Kennedy's assassination, foreign coups, the 1960s student unrest,
civil rights agitation, and civic disorder, Watergate, Iran-Contra, 9/11, domestic
surveillance, and many more -- have intelligence angles. However, determining what those angles
are plunges you into the miasma perpetuated by the agencies and their media accomplices.
The intelligence agencies and captive media's secrecy, disinformation, and lies make it
futile to mount a straightforward attack against them. It's like attacking a citadel surrounded
by swamps and bogs that afford no footing, making advance impossible. Their deadliest operation
has been against the truth. In a political forum, how does one challenge an adversary who
controls most of the information necessary to discredit, and ultimately reform or eliminate
that adversary?
You don't fight where your opponent wants you to fight. What the intelligence apparatus
fears most is a battle of ideas. Intelligence, the military, and the reserve currency are
essential component of the US's confederated global empire. During the 2016 campaign, Donald
Trump questioned a few empire totems and incurred the intelligence leadership's wrath,
demonstrating how sensitive and vulnerable they are on this front. The transparent flimsiness
of their Russiagate concoction further illustrates the befuddlement. Questions are out in the
open and are usually based on facts within the public domain. They move the battle from the
murk to the light, unfamiliar and unwelcome terrain.
The US government, like Oceania, switches enemies as necessary. That validates military and
intelligence; lasting peace would be intolerable. After World War II the enemy was the USSR and
communism, which persisted until the Soviet collapse in 1991. The 9/11 tragedy offered up a new
enemy, Islamic terrorism.
Seventeen years later, after a disastrous run of US interventions in the Middle East and
Northern Africa and the rout of Sunni jihadists in Syria by the combined forces of the Syrian
government, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, it's clear that Islamic terrorism is no longer a
threat that stirs the paranoia necessary to feed big military and intelligence budgets . For
all the money they've spent, intelligence has done a terrible job of either anticipating
terrorist strikes or defeating them in counterinsurgency warfare
So switch the enemy again, now it's Russia and China. The best insight the intelligence
community could offer about those two is that they've grown stronger by doing the opposite of
the US. For the most part they've stayed in their own neighborhoods. They accept that they're
constituents, albeit important ones, of a multipolar global order. Although they'll use big
sticks to protect their interests, carrots like the Belt and Road Initiative further their
influence much better than the US's bullets and bombs.
If the intelligence complex truly cared about the country, they might go public with the
observation that the empire is going broke. However, raising awareness of this dire threat --
as opposed to standard intelligence bogeymen -- might prompt reexamination of intelligence and
military budgets and the foreign policy that supports them. Insolvency will strangle the US's
exorbitantly expensive interventionism. It will be the first real curb on the intelligence
complex since World War II, but don't except any proactive measures beforehand from those
charged with foreseeing the future.
Conspiracy theories, a term popularized by the CIA to denigrate Warren Commission skeptics,
are often proved correct. However, trying to determine the truth behind intelligence agency
conspiracies is a time and energy-consuming task, usually producing much frustration and little
illumination. Instead,
as Caitlin Johnstone recently observed , we're better off fighting on moral and
philosophical grounds the intelligence complex and the rest of the government's depredations
that are in plain sight.
Attack the intellectual foundations of empire and you attack the whole rickety edifice,
including intelligence, that supports it. Tell the truth and you threaten those who deal in
lies . Champion sanity and logic and you challenge the insane irrationality of the powers that
be. They are daunting tasks, but less daunting than trying to excavate and clean the
intelligence sewer.
I sometimes wonder whether the Bond films are a psy-op.
I mean, the 'hero' is a psycho-killer ... the premise of the films is 'any means to an
end' ... they promote the ridiculous idea that you can be 'licensed to kill', and it's no
longer murder ... and they build a strong association between the State and glamour.
Bond makes a virtue out of 'following orders', when in reality, it's a Sin.
Can't remember which Section of MI6 Ian Fleming (novelist 007.5) worked but he came into
contact with my Hero, the best double-agent Cambridge, maybe World, has Ever produced, Kim
Philby. Fleming was a lightweight compared to him and was most likely provided the Funds, by
MI6 to titillate the Masses, spread the Word of Deep State.
The article makes many good points but still falls into use of distorting bs language.
For example, "after a disastrous run of US interventions" - well, they stole Libya's
wealth and destroyed the country: mission accomplished; that's what they were trying to do.
It was not an ""intervention", it was a f***ing war of aggression based on lies.
Well the good news is that folks now know there is deep State, shadow govt, puppet
masters, fake news MSM mockingbird programming, satanic "musik/ pop" promoters, etc.
Not everyone knows but more know, and some are now questioning the Matrix sensations they
have. That they have not been told the Truth.
Eventually humanity will awaken and get on track, how long it will take is unknown.
The CIA is a symptom of the problem but not the whole problem. Primarily it is the
deception that it sows, the confusion and false conclusions that the easily led fill their
heads with.
Now that you know there are bad guys out there...
Find someone to love, even if it is a puppy or a guppy. Simplify your needs, and commit
small acts of kindness on a regular basis. The World will heal, it may be a rocky
convalescence, yet Good triumphs in the end.
If nothing else, these pages will show the reader the following:
Although he does not recall when asked, George (Herbert Walker) Bush was in Dallas the
day JFK was assassinated.
Bush lies about the fact that he was a high-ranking CIA official at the time of JFK's
death.
Bush allowed the escape of a convicted terrorist from prison to go to work for him as an
undercover CIA asset in Iran-Contra.
Bush has released another convicted terrorist.
Both these terrorists were present on Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963.
Both these terrorists were convicted for killing 73 people by blowing up an
airliner.
Bush is personal friends with a close associate of these convicted terrorists, who was
also a participant in Iran Contra.
Bush has taken a leading role as CIA official in structuring/organizing these terrorists
in effective organizations.
Shall we say: "Only in America, the land of unlimited opportunities"?
================================================
+ All three generations Bush are members of a most powerful and most secret society. It's
called The order of Skull and Bones. Those who want to learn more about Skull and Bones can do
so by clicking here . Or read
this book click
here.
And those who argue that Skull and Bones is just a harmless fraternity or boy scout's
club, may ask themselves whether it is okay for leaders of open and democratic societies, to be
members of secret organizations whose agendas are not to be disclosed to the public.
"My senior year, I joined Skull & Bones, a secret society, so secret, I can't say
anything more." George W. Bush, President of the United States
See George W. Bush admitting his membership of Skull and Bones by clicking
here
The unauthorized biography of George H.W. Bush can be read here
Where were you, George?
+ Prescott Bush (father of George) made his fortune by financing the war effort of
Adolph Hitler together with his banking partners and fellow "bonesmen" Averell and Roland
Harriman. Prescott was stripped of his holdings in the Union Banking Corporation in 1942 under
the "Trading with the Enemy Act".
"On March 19, 1934, Prescott Bush handed Averell Harriman a copy of that day's New York
Times. The Polish government was applying to take over Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation
and Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Company from "German and American interests" because of
rampant "mismanagement, excessive borrowing, fictitious bookkeeping and gambling in
securities." The Polish government required the owners of the company, which accounted for over
45% of Poland's steel production, to pay at least its full share of back taxes. Bush and
Harriman would eventually hire attorney John Foster Dulles to help cover up any improprieties
that might arise under investigative scrutiny." Source: "Heir to the Holocaust" by Toby
Rogers.
John Foster Dulles was the brother of Allen Dulles, the later CIA director,
who was the architect - together with Vice President Richard Nixon and George Bush - of the Bay
of Pigs invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro's Cuba. Allen Dulles was fired by President Kennedy
because of the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs. Yet Allen Dulles was appointed by Lyndon Johnson to
serve on the Warren Commission to "investigate" JFK's death.
+ A vice-president of Empire Trust in Dallas was Jack Crichton (also president of Nafco
Oil & Gas, Inc.) who was connected with Army Reserve Intelligence. In a 1995 book written
by Fabian Escalante, the chief of a Cuban counterintelligence unit during the late 1950s and
early 1960s, he describes that as soon as intelligence was received from agents in Cuba that
Fidel Castro had "converted to communism," a plan called "Operation 40" was put into effect by
the National Security Council, presided over by Vice-President Richard Nixon. Escalante
indicates that Nixon was the Cuban "case officer" who had assembled an important group of
businessmen headed by George Bush and Jack Crichton, both Texas oilmen, to gather the necessary
funds for the operation.
In Dick Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (New York:
Carroll & Graf Publishers/Richard Gallen, 1992), at pp. 614-615, under a section called
"Origins of the Cover-up" there is a description of a group of Dallas men who surrounded Marina
Oswald as soon as her husband had been arrested, but before he was killed by Jack Ruby. These
were intelligence operatives seeking out Russian speakers. Ilya Mamantov knew George Bush and
spoke Russian. A geologist with Sun Oil, he received a call five hours after the assassination
from Jack Crichton, who was at that time the president of Nafco Oil and Gas, Inc. and a former
Military Intelligence officer then attached to Army Reserve Intelligence. Crichton was also
director of Dorchester Gas Producing Co. with D.H. Byrd, who owned the Texas School Book
Depository building and was a close friend of Lyndon Johnson.
+ In 1968, six months after the assassination of Robert Kennedy, Prescott writes
this letter (click here)
to Clover Dulles, wife of Allen Dulles. Note that he blames the Kennedy's for the failure of
the Bay of Pigs.
+ In the 1950's Prescott and the Harrimans are the founding fathers
of CBS. In 1963, CBS reporter Dan Rather makes his career break with the Kennedy Assassination
by lying to the American public that he sees JFK's head move violently FORWARD on the Zapruder
film. To hear Dan Rather lying click here .
The lie is possible, because the Zapruder film was bought by Time Life and kept lock and
barrel from the public for 14 years. Time Life is founded and owned by Henry Luce, also a
member of Skull and Bones. Luce had many friends, among them general Edward Lansdale, a known
covert operative for the CIA. Henry's wife, Clare Booth Luce, Congresswoman, is a radical
supporter of the Anti-Castro movement and personal friends with another high-ranking covert
operative for the CIA and a resident from Fort Worth: David Atlee Phillips. Edward Lansdale and
David Phillips are widely accepted as key planners of the JFK assassination. They are also
exact matches for the "covert operations specialist"(Phillips) and the "top brass in military
intelligence from Asia" (Lansdale) as described in Sam Giancana's biography "Double Cross" (to
read the page click
here ).
David Atlee Phillips and Edward Lansdale
+ David Atlee Phillips was the mastermind for the CIA staged coup by Pinochet in
1973, as well as the overthrow in 1954 of the Guatemala regime headed by Jacobo Arbenz. He is
working closely with CIA officer E. Howard Hunt, another suspect in the plot to kill JFK and
the leader of the infamous Watergate burglar team. In the 1950's and 1960's, Phillips is the
CIA case officer for the anti Castro Cubans in Havana and Mexico City. He is also the CIA
controller for Lee Harvey Oswald and James Files. James Files has confessed that he fired the
shot into JFK's head from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza. This
story is completely ignored by the mainstream media, which seems strange, because even if he
were lying, one would expect some exposure. The star of David Atlee Phillips rises to CIA
director of Covert Operations for the Western Hemisphere. According to his nephew Shawn
Phillips, who is quite a famous musician, David Atlee Phillips confirmed to his brother James
Atlee Phillips that he was in Dallas the day Kennedy died. To read Shawn's email: click here.
+ Prescott Bush advised Eisenhower to run for President and then launched Richard Nixon
into the Vice Presidency. Subsequently he was a major financer of Nixon's presidential campaign
against Kennedy. Prescott Bush was an avid JFK opponent and Nixon has always been a puppet for
the interests of the Bush family. To read the details click here .
"Figure that one out; if someone had tried to finger me for killing President Kennedy,
that person would have been my worst enemy. See volume one and ten for damning evidence. The
FBI agent that took Bush's call was Graham Kitchel, whose brother George Kitchel knew both de
Mohrenschildt (Oswald's best friend in Dallas) and Bush. (NOTE: Graham was a favourite of FBI
Director, J. E. Hoover who was briefing Bush of the CIA on November 23, 1963). On October 13,
1999, Adamson called Kenneth B. Jackson the FBI agent who investigated Parrott and received
Bush's complaint. Mr. Jackson, refused to return Adamson's phone call. why? "
Source: Bruce Adamson
"The greater our knowledge increases the more our ignorance unfolds."
+ Nixon admitted he was in Dallas, but gave conflicting accounts. To read about those
conflicting accounts click
here or click
here .
Is there other evidence to tie Nixon to key players in the JFK assassination? Yes, there is!
Look at this bombshell document that states Jack Ruby worked for Nixon: Click here . And Ruby was just a punk with
no connections to anyone?
+ One of the most tantalizing nuggets about Nixon's possible inside knowledge of JFK
assassination secrets was buried on a White House tape until 2002. On the tape, recorded in May
of 1972, the president confided to two top aides that the Warren Commission pulled off "the
greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated." Unfortunately, he did not elaborate. But the
context in which Nixon raised the matter shows just how low he could stoop in efforts to
assassinate the character of his political adversaries.
The Republican president made the "hoax" observation in the immediate aftermath of the
assassination attempt against White House hopeful George Wallace, a long-time Democratic
governor of Alabama. The attempt left Wallace paralyzed below the waist. Nixon blurted out his
comments about the falsity of the Warren findings in the middle of a conversation in which he
repeatedly directed two of his most ruthless aides, Bob Haldeman and Chuck Colson, to carry out
a monumental dirty trick. He urged them to plant a false news story linking the would-be
Wallace assassin -- Arthur Bremer -- to two other Democrats, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen.
George McGovern -- possible Nixon opponents in that year's fall elections. "Screw the record,"
the president orders on at one point. "Just say he was a supporter of that nut (it isn't clear
which of the two senators he is referring to). And put it out. Just say we have an
authenticated report."
As well as helping to perpetuate the Kennedy assassination "hoax" by turning down Haldeman's
proposal for a new JFK probe, Nixon had a major hand in perpetrating it. In November of 1964,
on the eve of the official release of the Warren Report, private citizen Nixon went public in
support of the panel's coming findings. In a piece for Reader's Digest, he portrayed Oswald as
the sole assassin. And Nixon implied that Castro -- "a hero in the warped mind of Oswald" --
was the real culprit.
He claimed that Robert Kennedy, as attorney general, had authorized a larger number of
wiretaps than his own administration. "But I don't criticize it," he declared, adding, "if he
had ten more and -- as a result of wiretaps -- had been able to discover the Oswald Plan, it
would have been worth it."
Whoops! The president apparently didn't realize his reference to "the Oswald Plan" didn't
square with the government's official lone-killer finding. For if Lee Harvey Oswald had been
solely responsible for the assassination, then there would not have been anyone for Oswald to
conspire with about his "plan" -- on a bugged telephone, or otherwise. Was Nixon inadvertently
revealing his knowledge that Mob leaders (Robert Kennedy's main wiretap targets) had a role in
President Kennedy's slaying? Was such a belief based on information acquired as a result of
Nixon's own solid ties to organized crime and the Mafia-infested Teamsters union? Source:
click here
.
+ A photograph exists of the Texas School Book Depository while the Dallas Police is sealing
off the building. Among the bystanders is a civilian that could be a twin brother of George
H.W. Bush.
+ George H.W. Bush is provably lying about his CIA career. He claims that his CIA
directorship in 1976 was his first job for the CIA. Difficult to believe? Page 3 will show the
proof for this lie. The truth is that he was actively involved in the preparation and financing
of the ill faithed Bay of Pigs invasion, as a high ranking CIA official, at which time he made
acquaintance with the now notorious CIA agent and Iran Contra operative Felix Rodriguez, a
veteran of the Bay of Pigs and Operation 40.
... ... ...
CONCLUSIONS:
The plot to kill JFK originates from the very same forces that were working together on the
Bay of Pigs and the plots to assassinate Fidel Castro: All these forces had their own reasons
to recapture Cuba and to hate Kennedy, whom they also blamed for the failure of the Bay of
Pigs.
These groups were
The CIA with the approval of some of the highest government officials (like Johnson,
Hoover, Ford and Nixon)
The anti Castro Cuban exiles
Mafiabosses Sam Giancana , Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante and
wealthy industrialists and Texan oilmen like H.L. Hunt, Syd Richardson and Clint
Murchison.
George H.W. Bush has documented connections to all four groups
Sam Giancana states in his biography that he knew Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon
personally (to read the page click here ), as well as the aforementioned oil
millionaires and George Demohrenshildt (to read the page click here ), , and that they planned the JFK
assassination together. James Files, the confessed grassy knoll assassin who fired the fatal
shot into JFK's head, did not only work for Sam Giancana, but was recruited in the CIA to train
Cuban exiles for the Bay of Pigs, by none other than David Atlee Phillips. He claims that one
of his later senior supervisors in covert operations was George H.W. Bush. Lyndon Johnson told
his mistress Madeline Brown: "It was the CIA and the Oilboys". Bush was both ! In addition he
was up to his neck in the Bay of Pigs and the anti Castro movement. What is the chance he could
not have known about the plot?
David Atlee Phillips was also the CIA supervisor for Lee Harvey Oswald, a heroic man that
was unwittingly chosen to take the blame as the patsy, while led to believe he was to penetrate
the group of assassins in order to sabotage the plot and prevent JFK's assassination.
On November 22, 1963 a criminal power elite seized control through a coup d'etat and a
subsequent cover up of the truth that lasts until today. This is because they strengthened
their position ever since. The key to unlocking the truth lies in one of their most powerful
assets: the mainstream media. That is why you were not aware of most of the above !
It is clear that Bush protected the cover-up, as well as individuals and CIA elements that
were involved in the JFK assassination. Although the above may not be conclusive evidence for
Bush's involvement or knowledge about JFK's murder, all together a bigger and more criminal
picture than many of us dare to imagine, emerges, with a direct connection to the political
situation of today.
"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can
do for your country."
"A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to
public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders
today - and in fact we have forgotten."
"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men."
"A man does what he must-in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and
dangers and pressures-and that is the basis of all human morality."
"A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on. "
Former US President George H.W. Bush has died at age 94 in Houston, according to his
spokesperson Jim McGrath.
Born into privilege and a tradition of service, Bush was a son of a senator, celebrated
World War II combat pilot, student athlete, Texas oilman, Republican congressman, national
party chairman, pioneering diplomat and spy chief [who likely oversaw the CIA assets assigned
to the JFK kill team].
After his own 1980 presidential campaign came up short, he served two terms as Ronald
Reagan's vice president before reaching the pinnacle of political power by winning the 1988
presidential election, soundly defeating Democrat Michael Dukakis.
After losing the White House in 1992, Bush became a widely admired political elder who leapt
out of airplanes to mark birthday milestones.
Nothing changed in almost five years. The situation actually became worse as Democratic Party became the second War Party.
Notable quotes:
"... Interventionists in Congress have no problem if a president starts wars on his own, because he is pursuing the policy they would have voted for anyway if they were bothered to vote on such things. They are ..."
"... Other members of Congress have no strong ideological motivation for this behavior, but simply want to be able to grandstand on major issues without suffering serious political consequences. They are glad to avoid having to vote one way or another on a war, since that potentially could come back to haunt them if the war drags on, if it fails, or if many Americans are killed. It's safer and easier for them to cheer on a president's illegal war when it's popular and then start griping about it when it goes badly ..."
Paul Pillar
remarks on Congress' screwed-up priorities regarding its role in foreign policy
decisions:
The role that the U.S. Congress has assumed for itself as a player in foreign policy
exhibits an odd and indefensible pattern these days. Senator Chris Murphy calls it a "double
standard," although that might be too mild a term. On one hand there are vigorous efforts to
insert Congress into the negotiation of an agreement on Iran's nuclear program. The efforts
extend even to attempts to interfere in the details of what is being negotiated, as reflected
in a string of amendments being considered in debate in the Senate this week on a bill laying
out a procedure for Congress to pass a quick judgment on the agreement. On the other hand
there is inaction, with little or no prospect of any action, on an authorization for the use
of military force against the so-called Islamic State.
Pillar is right that this is just the opposite of what Congress should be doing. If there is
a time when Congress ought to be deferring to the executive on foreign policy, it is when the
U.S. is involved in negotiations with other governments. The same people that claim to be
horrified by the idea of "535 commanders-in-chief" believe that they must sound off early and
often on every detail of a complex negotiated settlement. War can be left to the discretion of
the president and his officials, but not diplomacy. The same members that can't be bothered to
assume their proper constitutional responsibilities and happily yield to one illegal
presidential war after another cannot wait to meddle in a diplomatic process that, if
successful, will make a future conflict less likely.
Interventionists in Congress have no problem if a president starts wars on his own, because
he is pursuing the policy they would have voted for anyway if they were bothered to vote on
such things. They are alarmed by negotiations that could make it more difficult for a
future president to attack the regime involved in the talks. These hawks have excessive
confidence that military action can "solve" problems overseas, and so they don't to impose
limits on what the U.S. does in its foreign wars. They tend to see diplomacy as nothing but
appeasement and therefore something that should be undermined, second-guessed, and sabotaged as
much as possible.
Other members of Congress have no strong ideological motivation for this behavior, but
simply want to be able to grandstand on major issues without suffering serious political
consequences. They are glad to avoid having to vote one way or another on a war, since that
potentially could come back to haunt them if the war drags on, if it fails, or if many
Americans are killed. It's safer and easier for them to cheer on a president's illegal war when
it's popular and then start griping about it when it goes badly, and because they never cast a
vote one for or against the war they can have it both ways. If Congressional meddling succeeds
in damaging negotiations, any later costs to the U.S. from that missed opportunity won't be
linked back to the meddling members of Congress.
If the meddling doesn't work as intended, most
people will quickly forget it. In the meantime, the meddlers will get credit for "standing up"
against appeasement or whatever nonsensical description they choose to use.
Unfortunately,
there is normally no political cost for members of Congress that want to use diplomacy with an
unpopular government as an excuse to demagogue and look "tough" to the voters back home. That
is why many of them will try to interfere with U.S. diplomacy while giving the president free
rein to wage illegal wars for as long as he wants.
After reading Josh Marshall/David Frum debate on the nuclear deal yesterday, I found one of
the most effective Frum's arguments was liberals are claiming it is 2002 Iraq/n again. (Fair
argument considering Chait's great note on the 61 times Kristol uses
Churchill/Chamberlain/Hitler references.) Trying to avoid historical analogies, I am still
looking for actual evidence that Iran is building the bomb. The conservative argument still
rest on Iran still wants the bomb and the deal can't absolutely stop them.
Any thoughts on Stewart on Judith Miller interview on why the press accepted the
government's point that Iraq was building the bomb. Living through 2002, I was against the
Iraq War because I did not find the Bush administration WMD argument convincing enough and
felt it was a lot of heresy evidence. And i am seeing a similar argument with Iran.
China does not have its own technological base and is depended on the USA for many technologies. So while China
isdefinitly in assendance, Washington still have capability to stick to "total global dominance" agenda for some time.
Attempt to crush China by Tariffs might provoke the economic crisi in China and possible a "regime change", like Washington
santions to the USSR in the past. And that's probably the calculation.
Notable quotes:
"... President Trump has taken long-simmering US complaints about China to boiling point, castigating Beijing for unfair trade, currency manipulation, and theft of intellectual property rights. China rejects this pejorative American characterization of its economic practices. ..."
"... The problem is that Washington is demanding the impossible. It's like as if the US wants China to turn the clock back to some imagined former era of robust American capitalism. But it is not in China's power to do that. The global economy has shifted structurally away from US dominance. The wheels of production and growth are in China's domain of Eurasia. ..."
"... Combined with its military power, the postwar global order was defined and shaped by Washington. Sometimes misleading called Pax Americana, there was nothing peaceful about the US-led global order. It was more often an order of relative stability purchased by massive acts of violence and repressive regimes under Washington's tutelage. ..."
"... In American mythology, it does not have an empire. The US was supposed to be different from the old European colonial powers, leading the rest of the world through its "exceptional" virtues of freedom, democracy and rule of law . In truth, US global dominance relied on the application of ruthless imperial power. ..."
"... Washington likes to huff and puff about alleged Chinese expansionism "threatening" US allies in Asia-Pacific. But the reality is that Washington is living in the past of former glory. Trading blocs like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) realize their bread is buttered by China, no longer America. ..."
"... Washington's rhetoric about "standing up to China" is just that – empty rhetoric. It doesn't mean much to countries led by their interests of economic development and the benefits of Chinese investment. ..."
"... China's strategic economic plans – the One Belt One Road initiative – of integrating regional development under its leadership and finance have already created a world order analogous to what American capital achieved in the postwar decades. ..."
"... American pundits and politicians like Vice President Mike Pence may disparage China's economic policies as creating "debt traps" for other countries . But the reality is that other countries are gravitating to China's dynamic leadership ..."
The G20 summits are nominally about how the world's biggest national economies can cooperate
to boost global growth. This year's gathering – more than ever – shows, however,
that rivalry between the US and China is center stage.
Zeroing in further still, the rivalry is an expression of a washed-up American empire
desperately trying to reclaim its former power. There is much sound, fury and pretense from the
outgoing hegemon – the US – but the ineluctable reality is an empire whose halcyon
days are a bygone era.
Ahead of the summit taking place this weekend in Argentina, the Trump administration has
been issuing furious ultimatums to China to "change its behavior". Washington is threatening an
escalating trade war if Beijing does not conform to American demands over economic
policies.
President Trump has taken long-simmering US complaints about China to boiling point,
castigating Beijing for unfair trade, currency manipulation, and theft of intellectual property
rights. China rejects this pejorative American characterization of its economic practices.
Nevertheless, if Beijing does not comply with US diktats then the Trump administration says
it will slap increasing tariffs on Chinese exports.
The gravity of the situation was highlighted by the comments this week of China's
ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai, who warned that the "lessons of history" show trade wars can
lead to catastrophic shooting wars. He urged the Trump administration to be reasonable and to
seek a negotiated settlement of disputes.
The problem is that Washington is demanding the impossible. It's like as if the US wants
China to turn the clock back to some imagined former era of robust American capitalism. But it
is not in China's power to do that. The global economy has shifted structurally away from US
dominance. The wheels of production and growth are in China's domain of Eurasia.
For decades, China functioned as a giant market for cheap production of basic consumer
goods. Now under President Xi Jinping, the nation is moving to a new phase of development
involving sophisticated technologies, high-quality manufacture, and investment.
It's an economic evolution that the world has seen before, in Europe, the US and now
Eurasia. In the decades after the Second World War, up to the 1970s, it was US capitalism that
was the undisputed world leader. Combined with its military power, the postwar global order was
defined and shaped by Washington. Sometimes misleading called Pax Americana, there was nothing
peaceful about the US-led global order. It was more often an order of relative stability
purchased by massive acts of violence and repressive regimes under Washington's tutelage.
In American mythology, it does not have an empire. The US was supposed to be different from
the old European colonial powers, leading the rest of the world through its "exceptional"
virtues of freedom, democracy and rule of law . In truth, US global dominance relied on the
application of ruthless imperial power.
The curious thing about capitalism is it always outgrows its national base. Markets
eventually become too small and the search for profits is insatiable. American capital soon
found more lucrative opportunities in the emerging market of China. From the 1980s on, US
corporations bailed out of America and set up shop in China, exploiting cheap labor and
exporting their goods back to increasingly underemployed America consumers. The arrangement was
propped up partly because of seemingly endless consumer debt.
That's not the whole picture of course. China has innovated and developed independently from
American capital. It is debatable whether China is an example of state-led capitalism or
socialism. The Chinese authorities would claim to subscribe to the latter. In any case, China's
economic development has transformed the entire Eurasian hemisphere. Whether you like it or
not, Beijing is the dynamo for the global economy. One indicator is how nations across
Asia-Pacific are deferring to China for their future growth.
Washington likes to huff and puff about alleged Chinese expansionism "threatening" US allies
in Asia-Pacific. But the reality is that Washington is living in the past of former glory.
Trading blocs like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) realize their bread is buttered
by China, no longer America.
Washington's rhetoric about "standing up to China" is just that
– empty rhetoric. It doesn't mean much to countries led by their interests of economic
development and the benefits of Chinese investment.
One example is Taiwan. In contrast to Washington's shibboleths about "free Taiwan", more and
more Asian countries are dialing down their bilateral links with Taiwan in deference to China's
position, which views the island as a renegade province. The US position is one of rhetoric,
whereas the relations of other countries are based on material economic exigencies. And
respecting Beijing's sensibilities is for them a prudent option.
A recent
report by the New York Times starkly illustrated the changing contours of the global
economic order. It confirmed what many others have observed, that China is on the way to
surpass the US as the world's top economy. During the 1980s, some 75 per cent of China's
population were living in "extreme poverty", according to the NY Times. Today, less than 1 per
cent of the population is in that dire category. For the US, the trajectory has been in reverse
with greater numbers of its people subject to deprivation.
China's strategic economic plans – the One Belt One Road initiative – of
integrating regional development under its leadership and finance have already created a world
order analogous to what American capital achieved in the postwar decades.
American pundits and politicians like Vice President Mike Pence may disparage China's
economic policies as creating "debt traps" for other countries . But the reality is that other
countries are gravitating to China's dynamic leadership.
Arguably, Beijing's vision for economic development is more enlightened and sustainable than
what was provided by the Americans and Europeans before. The leitmotif for China, along with
Russia, is very much one of multipolar development and mutual partnership. The global economy
is not simply moving from one hegemon – the US – to another imperial taskmaster
– China.
One thing seems inescapable. The days of American empire are over. Its capitalist vigor has
dissipated decades ago. What the upheaval and rancor in relations between Washington and
Beijing is all about is the American ruling class trying to recreate some fantasy of former
vitality. Washington wants China to sacrifice its own development in order to somehow
rejuvenate American society. It's not going to happen.
That's not to say that American society can never be rejuvenated . It could, as it could
also in Europe. But that would entail a restructuring of the economic system involving
democratic regeneration. The "good old days" of capitalism are gone. The American empire, as
with the European empires, is obsolete.
That's the unspoken Number One agenda item at the G20 summit. Bye-bye US empire.
What America needs to do is regenerate through a reinvented social economic order, one that
is driven by democratic development and not the capitalist private profit of an elite few.
If not, the futile alternative is US failing political leaders trying to coerce China, and
others, to pay for their future. That way leads to war.
I changed my default search engine to DuckDuckGo years ago.
Commenters occasionally say here at TUR that Google is somehow superior, but even if
that's so (which I doubt), isn't the corruption plenty of reason to boycott? Guess not, in
light of news the other day that Amazon continues to expand.
Most people, even here in Exceptionalia, are lazy and dull. In a better society, the
Establishment would be better reined in.
Somehow Google has convinced everyone that their search is not biased because it uses a trade
secret algorithm. Eventually the public will figure out that the argument does not even make
any sense. The algorithm is tuned by the work of thousands of engineers, and of course it is
biased.
Semi-OT: NYT has something about Facebook hiring an oppo research firm to look into George
Soros. Apparently he trashed Facebook at Davos and Sheryl Sandberg thinks he might be
shorting their stock.
Just goes to show that there probably isn't some giant super conspiracy among the
Jews/SJWs/Democrats/whatever – Soros and Facebook both seem pretty keen on open borders
globalist nonsense, and yet here they are fighting like cats in a sack.
This makes me proud that I use Bing. It has a nice picture each day as its backdrop. Here is
yesterday's, a particularly beautiful one of the Frankfurt Christmas Market, which proves
Bing is Christmas-friendly -- and even German-friendly, Heaven forbid:
I've been using https://www.startpage.com/ as my main search engine for four
years now. It serves my purposes >95% of the time. I only resort to Google no more than
once every couple weeks. Startpage also allows you to visit sites anonymously and never ever
tracks anything. Also no Gmail or Google Docs. Also run Ghostery to block Google Analytics on
all sites (that, by the way, includes Unz.com).
Since I am not interested in luvvies, Hollywood, and all that, I hardly ever comment on them.
Kevin Spaceyga, however, is worth a remark. Because I was a great fan of the British original
I thought I'd watch a couple of episodes of the American "House of Cards". It was noticeable
that of the whole cast he was the only one who could act.
"But I don't think that the Google Suggestions are deliberately skewed in the way you're
suggesting."
Oh sweet summer child.
I think it was Steve who recommended this, but do an image search on Google for American
Scientists and let us know if you think that's an accurate representation. Try the same with
the phrase White Couples.
These days you get similar returns on Bing btw.
Yes I know these are not auto-suggestions, but fruit of the same tree.
The Creepy Line, add it to your watch lists. Amazon Prime I think.
@Tyrion 2
I'm not taking a side in your spat, I just want to point out that it'd be foolish in the
extreme to take Vox at its word there. All Vox does is tell people what they want to hear,
and from that you can infer what kind of reader they're after, and it ain't Regular Joe.
'Cos what the "policy elite" really want is the news patronisingly explained to them
I think it would be more precise to describe Vox as being aimed at the social class from
which the policy elite is drawn, rather than at the policy elite itself. Even so, I'd be
shocked if most of the policy elite weren't regular readers. I doubt even 1% of them find it
patronising. Remember: these people are 27-yr olds who literally know nothing.
@Roger
More times than I can count, I have engaged on this topic with people who smugly declare that
"Google searches are controlled by an algorithm" and hence cannot possibly be biased. After
all, it's a big computer not a person!
And they appear to believe that this explanation is completely dispositive.
You are considerably more optimistic than I am about the general intelligence and critical
faculties of the American public.
@Trevor H.
Incidentally, anyone keen on researching the wealthy and powerful members of the Tribe is
well advised to use "philanthropy" as a primary keyword. Heck, even Sheldon Adelson is
considered a philanthropist by Google. Wikipedia is not far behind.
Bernie Madoff? Oh, he was just a misunderstood philanthropist.
Because of this article, I bookmarked Duck Duck Go and will use it instead of Google from now
on. BTW, did you ever Google "Google autocomplete policy?"
I actually suspect that the "deaths from opioids" result is phased out as part of some
algorithm to stop racist predictions, in this case, against white people
No. If you spend time around leftist websites, you will find lots and lots of Leftists
don't see the opioid crisis as bad at all, because it mostly kills the wrong kind of white
people (at least that's the perception, I don't know the numbers). Some openly cheer it and
mock the "dumb hillbillies" that are dying by the thousands.
Google doesn't want to let you know about it because they're happy it's happening.
Just goes to show that there probably isn't some giant super conspiracy among the
Jews/SJWs/Democrats/whatever – Soros and Facebook both seem pretty keen on open
borders globalist nonsense, and yet here they are fighting like cats in a sack.
Medieval nobles fought each other, often bitterly, often to the death. But they usually
suspended their quarrels whenever the peasants got uppity. They could all agree to repress
the commoners. Just because the elites aren't a monolithic block in everything, doesn't mean
they don't conspire against all the rest of us.
I suspect that there is a broader part of the population that isn't sure what words they are
looking for to complete their search query; but, does anybody here not know the end to the
question that they are going to ask the internet? It is occasionally amusing when I see
suggested searches go off in a wildly different direction than I had intended, but I rarely
follow the suggestions to their conclusion. I am sure Google has statistics that support
their "micro-gaslighting"; however, marketing to the masses always feels counter-intuitive to
my brain. Click-through ads and the like are mind-boggling, but it -appears to work on enough
people to justify the ad-spend.
Google's image recognition has been gutted. In 2014 it would recognize a face and find photos
of that person across the internet. A right click would find the original of the fakes used
by Russian trolls to suggest non existent attacks on civilians by the Ukrainian army. Now it
can't even match the same image.
deaths from her ➔ deaths from herbalife/herpes/hernia surgery/herbal
supplements
deaths from mor ➔ (nothing)
deaths from ox ➔ (nothing)
deaths from perc ➔ deaths percy jackson
deaths from cod ➔ (nothing)
deaths from vic ➔ death from victoza/vick's vaporub
deaths from hydro ➔ deaths from hydropower/hydroxycut/hydrogen sulfide/hydrofluoric
acid/hydroxyzine/hydrogen cyanide/hydrochloric acid
deaths from coc ➔ deaths from coconuts
deaths from metha ➔ deaths from methadone (lol)/methanol poisoning/methane
deaths from cry ➔ deaths from cyrotherapy/cryptococcosis
deaths from amp ➔ deaths from amputation
deaths from ec ➔ deaths from ectopic pregnancy/e coli/e cigs/eclampsia/eczema/ect
deaths from md ➔ (nothing)
deaths from mari ➔ deaths from maria/marinol
deaths from ls ➔ (nothing)
deaths from lyse ➔ deaths from lysenkoism
@Buzz
Mohawk I find that Bing is more objective and I also like the daily photo, so I switched
to them as my browser home page a couple of years ago.
I have to say one of the things I like about Steve Sailer is his charming, old school
White Guy naïveté:
"the news media doesn't seem all that enthusiastic about reporting on what goes on inside
Google, perhaps out of fear of what Google could do to them."
Actually Steve, it's because the news media think Google is doing a wonderful thing and wish
they would do it harder and faster.
Our problem is Google has Plausible Irrelevance: it's obvious they're manipulating
auto-completes in directions they favor, and since Google is vast and powerful that seems
highly relevant to us dissidents. But it's easy for Google to hide behind 'if searchers get
all the way to "Kevin Spacey g", let them hunt and peck for a and y – what's the big
deal?'
And the offending author becomes internet-famous as a flying saucer nut.
Brian Littlefair didn't write that. The search term "Brian Littlefair" does not appear on
that UFO web page at all. What did appear there, for a while, in the Latest Article column,
was 'The First Thing We Do,'
That was presumably the offending article. Its content might be triggering to hasbara bots
or JTRIG-type keyboard commandos or both. The trick of suppression could be effected by a bit
of incremental traffic while both articles appeared on the same page.
This was most pronounced on (Yahoo(oath)(Verizon)). It didn't replicate exactly but the
same general hits permuted. DuckDuckGo returned a hit on the UFO article too. By contrast
Metager.de, searx.me, and yandex.ru gave you what you would expect.
@anonymous
Same here on the duckduckgo, Mr #340, but I'll use google when I get to an impasse and really
want to try hard to get some information.
DuckDuckgo search escalates to Bing (MUCH BETTER on 2 things: images and finding
addresses/phone numbers for local businesses), then, if need be, Google.
BTW, I , uhhh, well, this friend of mine, yeah, sometimes types my blog name into Google
to help it stay high in the rankings. Doing this on google, though I detest them, is akin to
something everyone in the stock market does. With 90%, or what-have-you, of the searches, I
crap, my friend wants to work within the system, so to speak. That's just like buying shares
of some company because you know that others will buy on some news coming (the news alone may
not actually be a good business reason to buy, but it's the psychology of the masses).
The algorithm is tuned by the work of thousands of engineers,
No, those people are absolutely NOT engineers, no matter WTF Sergey Brin calls them. There
may be a few dozen engineers working for that place, but they'd be the guys calculating heat
transfer loads off of the servers, or designing electrical power systems.
@Alfa158AGREED! However, Steve's probably got your point in mind too. If there is a
proto-Tucker Carlson in a media operation, then he may fear the loss of business and
de-linking by Google, though he does know Google is not doing wonderful things.
@Redneck
farmer With good reason. Life expectancy in the US is now falling, largely as a result of
them (and suicide), despite the fact that we spend more on health care than anyone. We are
prolonging the lives of the non-productive elderly at tremendous cost but killing healthy
young people in what should be their prime productive years. You usually only see falling
life expectancy in countries with serious decline, such as Russia after the fall of the
Soviet Union.
But, yes, it's not exactly a secret, which makes it even more puzzling that Google is
manipulating its results in this way. I don't think it is just some by-product of the strange
counter-intuitive workings of AI but is probably the result of human intervention, although I
don't know for what reason. PC thinking is even more counter-intuitive than that of AI bots.
I'm still trying to figure out why "colored people" is bad but "people of color" is good.
Here's a few things I've noticed about Google's auto-complete from my own anecdotal
experience.
1. It relies heavily not only on your search history but also on your search "currency,"
i.e. it will preferentially auto-fill a word or phrase if that same word or phrase appears on
another tab you have open on your computer at the time, even if you've never typed that word
or phrase into the search box before.
2. It is massively tied into television viewing patterns. Google knows what is on
television, when and where. If you do a search about an item that was just featured in a
commercial during an NFL game, you may get an auto-fill "hit" even before you've typed in
anything you might think would be a relevant term.
Google is not in business to do social engineering, it's in business to make money. My
impression is that Google's auto-fill suggestions are the result of a bunch of nerds trying
desperately to monetize search and bumping up against the hard, cold reality that it can't
really be done to any great extent, that the diminishing returns come sharp and quick, and
that AI is nothing like it's cracked up to be. To that end they will mine every scrap of
available data they can get their hands on and apply their algorithms to it, but the end
product is mostly cheesy and useless, like Facebook showing you ads for products you just
bought (and consequently don't need to buy again).
Since this is the best that the brightest programmers with the most powerful computers can
do, it tells you that the whole concept is flawed. Advertising doesn't really work. AI
doesn't really work. But the world today shuts its eyes to these facts in order to keep alive
its inward vision of a prosperous, progressing global marketplace. If the facts were fully
accepted, the value of companies like Google would sink to niche levels and the internet for
the masses would basically shut down. This will happen one day, but in the meantime they will
blow that bubble up with as much hype as possible in order to justify their own
existence.
@Tyrion 2
I did the same comparison before I even started reading the comments. ; )
Here it is for anyone who wants to save some time. Notice the spike this week. iSteve
influence?
This one is REALLY blatant given that "deaths from open heart surgery" returns: "Hmm, your
search doesn't have enough data to show here." (sometimes a flatline just means one search
happens much more than another, but still has data)
Does anyone know anything about how Google actually implements this algorithm
tweaking?
Do they just remove results or actively provide innocuous replacements? Typing "deaths from
ope" in Bing gives the Google response as the third option so seems inconclusive.
How do they get complete coverage? Is it some kind of regular expression like "deaths from
op*", a similarity match to phrases, or ?
Another interesting data point is that typing "deaths from opi" gives zero
autocompletions. Surely if they were doing explicit replacements they could add something
like "deaths from opinion surveys."
@Anon I
don't have the knowledge you seem to have about it, Mr. #190, though it sounds like you were
in this around the time of Lycos and Alta Vista, etc. Lots has happened since then. I want to
ask you if you think my first thought (upon reading Mr. Sailer's post) has any merit. That
is, do you think some of the searches, say the Buchanan one*, were the result of bots made to
beat all hell out of the search engine on one very particular topic to make auto-complete,
and more importantly, IMO, the top results appear as one wants?
I could see some guy trying to make his name or business appear on top, maybe even Mr.
Haney (haha, if he's still alive) on the "Bu"-for "Buchanan" thing, but who would want to
make the "open-heart surgery.." appear first, a team of computer savvy cardiologist?! It
would also require lots of different manipulations besides just the one displayed by Steve.
Of course, that's what computers are damn good at.
I tend to agree with Mr. Sailer's opinion on this, but for me, all this discussion (if
some good geeks come on here) is a good thing, as I'd like to learn more about SEO for my own
benefit.
information retrieval engineers
See, now that's not engineering. These people don't work out problems using the math and
empirical data that describe the laws of nature. I don't want to have to keep doing this,
dammit.
.
* and I did read you back then, Steve, as I remember this well. I cannot believe that was
8 damn years ago. Time is figuratively flying!
@Anonymous
Arguably (and I'm not saying this is right) because whites are the hardest hit group, which
contradicts the narrative of "white privilege". An old joke headline (and I've seen actual
examples of this many times in our MSM after natural disasters, wars, etc.) is " World Ends
– Minorities and Women Hit Hardest".
This is the lens thru which the Left views everything, so something that shows that in
fact working class whites, especially men, are the ones who are in the most trouble in our
society (but get the least help from our government and institutions) is not something that
the Left is eager to highlight. This might force them to reconsider whether they have put
their thumb on the scale too heavily in favor of other groups. It also undermines their
nonsensical claim that they are only "helping" minorities and immigrants, which is a purely
good thing, when in fact they are manipulating a zero sum game, so for every bit of "help"
that they render, there is an equal amount of "harm" put on someone else's head.
Does anyone know anything about how Google actually implements this algorithm
tweaking?
I think the answer is no. Sometimes you can gain little glimpses from patents, but as a
whole Google algorithms are a heavily guarded trade secret for many reasons. First of all
because they don't want to give search engine competitors (not that they have many left) an
advantage – their search algorithm was their secret sauce in the 1st place. 2nd because
people who are trying to game the search system for various nefarious economic and political
reasons would LOVE to know how the algorithm works because then they could manipulate it
– better for it to be a black box. And lastly because they don't want you to tour the
sausage factory and see how much "hand tuning" is going on (I suspect a lot, because bots are
very "racist" when left to their own devices) and how much of that hand tuning is based on
SJW considerations and the financial and petty personal interests of the Google execs. This
would open them up to all kinds of 2nd guessing and criticism. So from their POV they are
much better off keeping it all a complete mystery and telling you that it's all "science"
that you wouldn't understand anyway.
"Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost
inexpressible. It's Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world
to itself.
Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and
slavery have disappeared.
The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will,
because they don't grasp what it really means: humiliation.
The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't conscious of it.
And, superiority excites envy.
Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we
call minorities."
Joseph Sobran, April 1997
Here is a great article on how evil the Sackler family is. Getting doctors to chuck their
public trust and credibility into the toilet to shill for Purdue Pharma was pioneered by
these people for Valium.
It would seem to be pretty reasonable to ask that Google publicly disclose how it is
manipulating specific topics like this, but nobody ever seems to do this.
Big tech will typically try to obfuscate the issue by saying "it's the algorithm" or "it's
complicated." It's not.
The easiest, least cumbersome way to regulate the major search engines is make them
provide an audit log of all filtering rules or hard overrides in their search results. Limit
this to for profit services that have above a certain threshold in daily users or market
share, so it does not hurt innovation in startups. The vast majority of changes would be
understandable or inconsequential. But it gives both parties of government direct insight,
particularly around local elections, where meddling would be impossible to detect.
Further out, you can make them report any substantial bias they are introducing into the
training data and give a basic explanation. In the same way lenders have to explain their
lending models, search engines should have to explain how they are tweaking theirs. As search
increasingly shifts to mobile, personalized, and voice-based, this becomes important as the
only search result that matters is the first one that is returned.
In a world where national elections are coming down to a few hundred thousand votes, it
blows my mind Republicans have not been pushing for this.
@Mr. Anon
Haha good analogy, Mr. Anon. Zerohedge had a story on this little spat. However, these are no
medieval nobles, but more like candidates for AntiChrist . It'll be
entertaining, I suppose, like Christopher Walken is as the angel Gabrial in Prophecy ,
but I'm stayin' outta' this one.
"It would seem to be pretty reasonable to ask that Google publicly disclose how it is
manipulating specific topics like this, but nobody ever seems to do this."
You mean it would seem to be pretty reasonable to ask Google, DuckDuckGo AND Bing publicly
disclose how it is manipulating specific topics like this, but nobody ever seems to do
this.
Probably because it is Coalition of the Fringe Group Cringeworthy.
@alaska3636
Yes, I'd rather not even look at the auto-complete, or do it on a bogged-down computer like
mine in which it can't catch up with me! The exception is when I want to look up a word
spelling. I just let auto-complete do it for me.
On your 2nd point:
Click-through ads and the like are mind-boggling, but it -appears to work on enough
people to justify the ad-spend.
Not necessarily, Alaska. Who really knows if the ads do a damn thing? Google or whoever
might honestly give you numbers as to click-throughs, but loads of them, at least for me, are
mistakes and times that the little X for close is SO DAMN SMALL that I can't be sure to close
rather than click the ad. (That's especially bad on a touch screen.)
Then, the only way to know if your ad really was read at all, is if it leads to a sale or
request of some sort being sent in. Google may tell you how many people are reading what
you've got out there, but that's just more lies.
@Intelligent
Dasein Very good comment, I.D., especially the last paragraph re: advertising. Your first
part reminded me of something that is fairly-well related, so I'll write it here.
Have you all noticed something with youtube, owned by Google? It now uses the IP number
(or something else at the modem or router) to keep track of videos that you've been watching
or searching for, rather than just cookies, or some other method based on just THE ONE
DEVICE.
Here's the observation – My wife likes to watch a number of the same kinds of silly
soap-opera-like and reality-show videos on her computer or phone when she is bored. Yes, I
know she is no dummy, but it's whom they are. Anyway, it used to be I'd see music and
political video suggestions based on what I've viewed and (I believe) what videos have been
embedded in web pages (such as unz) that I've viewed.
All of a sudden, about 3 months back, I started seeing all these suggestions on youtube on
my computer for the dumb-ass soap-opera/reality-show videos that my wife watches. The
suggestions area was filled with her crap. That happened like the flip of a switch. That's
probably literally the case (OK, a software setting), but also likely one of the "action
items" decided on at a meeting by some Google Anything-But-Engineers just before that day.
It's pretty annoying – I don't need the suggestions anyway, but now I can see what
these people are up to.
Just a word to the wise: If you watch something, cough, porn, cough cough, that you may
not quite want others in the household to know about, you'd better go to Starbucks. The
bathroom code is 1-1-1-1. Glad to be of help.
@Anon We
know that AI is "racist" and that Google is working hard to find a way to make it not racist
(and yet still produce meaningful results), which is probably impossible. We also know that
Google has plenty of human resources (although not an infinite #) to throw at such problems
until an automated fix is found, just as Facebook now has thousands of people searching
manually for Rooshian election interference in order to keep the dogs of Washington at bay.
We can also guess that they are not eager to publicize to what extent they are tweaking or
hand tuning algorithms or results – they would much rather you think that it is all
done by "science". Putting this together, it's my guess that they are doing a fair amount of
hand tuning, which is some spotty and uneven combination of combatting SEOs, de-racisting
their AI bots, the leftist predilections of Google employees, the commands from on high of
Google management, etc.
@tambit
Final observations about Silicon Valley big tech. People need to appreciate a few things:
– Think of the short tenures that employees have at big tech companies. A
conservative at Google or Facebook will only be there for two or three years. So they wonder,
"Why rock the boat? In two years, I will be at Netflix or Amazon, or joining a startup,
anyway." The transitory nature of it makes employees who break from the orthodoxy stay
silent, especially after Damore.
– As with any company, everything is tacitly approved from the CEO and senior
leadership. It's unlikely they have their hands in augmenting search results directly. On the
other hand, they know the biases of their employees, and look the other way. For example, a
CEO may talk about how getting SF contractors to vet news articles means there is
unintentional liberal bias. But what prevents them from having some of the contractors in
say, Kansas or Ohio, for a more balanced sample? Because the CEO condones the bias.
– If people are waiting for a smoking gun from Google, you will be out of luck.
Because of their reach, they can quietly nudge people in a certain direction through repeated
exposure. You may see an isolated incident and think "that's weird." But you're not seeing
the few thousand other ways they are doing it concurrently. More so, as things continue to
shift to mobile and native apps, there will be no meaningful way to measure this. For
example, voice search could be construed so it "misunderstands" some phrases with slightly
higher probability. This prompts users to type it in manually, which many will not do. Good
luck catching that.
@Reg
Cæsar Typing !bing, !google, !youtube, !amazon, !wikipedia and some others into
duckduckgo before the search phrase, will redirect you to a search result from those sites,
rather than duckduckgo results.
@KunioKun
I have an impression that in media coverage of the opioid crisis the role of heroine, its
price and where does it come from is underplayed. Any connection to Afghanistan?
@utu Most
"heroin" nowadays is fentanyl or some other synthetic opiate and it comes from labs in China
or from US prescription sources. It is so powerful that you don't need to smuggle in large
quantities – 1 kilo is enough to lethally overdose everyone in a city of half a
million. Actual heroin (a declining product) comes from Mexico. Afghanistan would be way down
on the list in the US nowadays.
@KunioKun
I'm not at all defending the Sacklers; if I made the laws I'd subject the ones involved in
the business, and the other responsible Purdue personnel, to one of the more humane-ish old
fashioned forms of execution, perhaps blowing from a gun , and seize the
wealth of the rest, but this notion of KMac's fan club that their actions have escaped
notice, and in particular escaped notice from liberals, is 180 degrees the opposite of the
truth.
In fact, the Sacklers are all that liberals want to talk about WRT the opioid crisis -- it
deflects blame from Mexican heroin, illegal alien drug pushers and Chinese fentanyl -- hence
the widely
read New Yorker article , and the bestseller Dopesick
, which also toes the left-wing party line* that it was all Sacklers and not
Mexico/illegals/China, and which received glowing reviews in the New York
Times , Washington Post and Wall Street Journal .
*Unlike dueling bestseller Dreamland
, which assigns the Sacklers their share of blame but also tells the rest of the story.
I suspect that there is a broader part of the population that isn't sure what words they
are looking for to complete their search query; but, does anybody here not know the end to
the question that they are going to ask the internet?
+1000.
I was about to type something along the same lines but my version had "fuck[ing]" and
"retard[s|ed]" in it several times.
@Tyrion 2
You are already aware of this, Tyrion 2 , since you followed the discussion/debate
over in the other comments thread, but this information might be interesting to other UR
readers and commenters:
Another question :
i) It appears the 2018 total drug overdose death will be 80,000! That is immense, and is
twice as much as auto deaths. Until three days ago, I had no idea the number was
skyrocketing this much.
But then why does it not show up in the CDC death table (2016 linked here, which was
still a high enough number)? For younger age brackets, surely even the 2016 number was in
the Top 10. Is it categorized as something else (like 'Unintentional Injury')?
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
[...] Overdoses are injuries too
[...] It is easy to find evidence that drug overdoses are unpopular subjects for study or
intervention by injury professionals. Index Medicus reveals that to date Injury
Prevention has published only one article with the word "overdose" or the phrase "drug
poisoning" in its title or abstract. A search of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention flagship publication, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report ( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr , accessed 16 Jan 2007),
uncovered only 53 citations using the word "overdose" since 1982. In contrast, a search for
"lead poisoning" in MMWR returned 1531 references. Scanning the 53 articles mentioning
overdose reveals that overdoses are not the focus of most of them. Instead, many
describe outbreaks of unusual cases, such as lead poisoning among methamphetamine users.5
Topics such as endemic use of methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and narcotic analgesics
receive relatively little attention in the injury literature despite their large
contribution to morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.
OT: Wikileaks is threatening to release more Hillary docs. I suspect if they'd had them
earlier, they would have released them earlier. These look like a batch of new docs, then.
They're probably ones on Weiner's laptop, and I don't think it's a coincidence that Wikileaks
suddenly ended up with them after Sessions was given the boot. Some government leaker wanted
to wait until Sessions was gone to make sure his butt was covered.
@dearieme
And it really shows with his absence in the most recent season. I think it's also that Frank
Underwood comes off as a likable guy at times while everyone else on the show are just plain
nasty people.
Google's *is* fairly transparent about their autocomplete policy. According to them, they
censor "sex', "hate", "violence" and "harmful activities". Most of the above examples
probably fall under the "hate" grouping, which includes ethnicity, religion, and sexual
orientation.
You also have to keep in mind that Google is a very algorithm driven company. More often
than not someone's making a high-level decision, but most of the individual level choices are
made by some machine learning algo that's essentially a black box. Some neural network linked
a non-insignificant percentage of "jew" queries to downstream clickthroughs to the Daily
Stormer. Whereas "mormon" queries don't lead to hate sites. So the censor algo tries to tag
everything with "jew" in the autocomplete.
As for the opiod death thing, that's pretty consistent with Google's general censoring of
any drug-related query. This would fall under the "harmful activities" category. You'll
notice that sites Drugs-Forums, Bluelight and Erowid, which openly discuss and advocate
recreational drug use, no longer appear in most searches. Again, "death from opiates" is
being tagged, not for nefarious political reasons, but because to an algorithm it looks like
something someone might search for before getting high.
Steve, You have readers at The Goolag. By the time I read this, "death from open heart
surgery" was at the top of the heap returned for your search string, along with some other
amusing obscure suggestions.
I'm old enough to remember the wild west web. It probably ended when Obama legally forced
google to take down the movie 'innocence of muslims' from youtube until hillary could get to
benghazi or something.
But I loved it when back in the day the first search result for "Jew" was "Jew Watch".
Of course Larry and Sergei were among the Jews being "watched" (I assume Stalin and Sailer
are too, those are some verbose fellas!) but despite the 2 minutes of outrage Google stuck to
it's guns.
Bear in mind, a lot of kids ACTUALLY WERE innocently searching "Jew" and getting an
interesting earful.
But it wasn't until this had been the top result for nonths and headlines in every paper
for 3 days that Google gave in by placing a: "Here's why you are seeing this result first.
Also, no, we do not like Nazis".
I really liked the old internet but somewhere along the way, "the market" got in the
way.
I also happen to think that encouragement is both sweet and probably at least as effective
as the opposite so I enjoy crediting google for letting jew watch hold top position (it had
the most references to "jew" apparently) and for publicly fighting obama on thr innocence of
muslims thing – another thing that was rather principled considering as how many people
believed the Copt that the movie was financed by "a hundred rich jews" and herr Larry and
Sergei were fighting to keep broadcasting it to the world.
Oh, and if ur one of the local antisems suck a lemon
@Anon Lmao
at the idiot SJW who thinks that "Islamist" is a synonym for "Muslim" and gets triggered upon
finding out that Islamists aren't universally revered.
@Achmed E.
Newman What you describe is called, in the search results context (although I'm not sure
about the Google Suggest context), "Google bombing" or "Googlewashing."
I do think that Google has a way to manually preempt their normal algorithms for these
situations, while they work to come up with automated ways to detect and prevent such
mischief, since Google bombing produced bad PR and was embarassing for them. The problem was
generally "fixed" too quickly to have been due to a fundamental algorithm modification.
information retrieval engineers
There are two degrees that most universities give, computer science and computer
engineering. The latter is a more difficult major and involves classes in how computers work
at the hardware level and more machine and assembly language study, but in practice the
graduates just end up working as programmers, like the computer science guys. It's known that
CE guys tend to be smarter, so at the very beginning of your career it helps to have a CE
degree rather than a CS degree. You get a slight salary boost, that snowballs over time,
until you get too old and expensive and are laid off in place of an Indian.
There used to be an activist project called Scroogle which would disrupt Google's
track-keeping of who searched for what, and by way of explanation posted screengrabs of
Google altering its displayed search results ( not suggesed terms ), so that in
one case a Vietnam vet magically became an antiwar anti-Vet hippie. If you clicked through
and read the original page, everything would be clear. If you were a lazy student writing a
paper in a hurry and just read the little summaries posted on the search result page, you
would have a backward but seemingly legitimate understanding. And none of these errors ever
broke right.
@Achmed E.
Newman Sorry, Starbucks no longer wants you watching porn because of "pressure groups";
guess it's one more step to stopping Unz and Vdare down the road once the SPLC gets going.
"Internet safety campaign group Enough is Enough have called on Starbucks to block the
viewing on their Wi-Fi networks since 2016. The group relaunched an online petition calling
for them to keep a promise they said they made more than two years ago to implement a
blocking system.
"The group say that open Wi-Fi hotspots -- like those at Starbucks -- can create "criminal
safe havens for sexual predators to operate with anonymity."
@meh Your
screaming that Google is putting its thumb on the scale, and for exact given nefarious
reason, isn't an argument either, just your suspicion based on prejudice.
Google's tweaked search results are often superficially illogical or seem to be because
they are fluid as well as geographically dependent. It used to be any search for "Jewish"
gave an idiotic "We're concerned about these results" message even if the search was for
"best Jewish daycare."
Ever since Steve first complained about Buttram it's been pointed out that location and
personal history, i.e. cookies and other identifiers also skew the results. Yet he believes
Google should be able to read his mind, and show him whatever story about golfers taking the
SAT on steroids he thinks should be #1 Worldwide News.
It is trivial to modify the browser search extension -- or just to use a different portal
-- in order to gather and compare search pages from multiple sources. But it appears the
cognoscenti around here are lazy and need the world to be changed before they modify their
own behavior for a supposedly better outcome. They don't even realize that Duck Duck Go
merely recycles Google searches with some added pretense of "anonymizing" them, which will
get a laugh if you explain it to any online marketing professional. That's probably too
generous in light of the barely concealed salivating to control what everyone ELSE sees.
Because Google was always intended as some munificent public utility staffed by meek
librarians committed to informing you according to your best interests, yeah right.
Note that Google probably _should_ filter, by default, the suggestions. You wouldn't want
your kid stumbling onto hardcore porn just because it's a common suggestion. Yes, I realize
kids see everything these days -- but that doesn't mean we should surrender all attempts at
decency.
The real problem is that society is so divided that we can't agree on what should be
filtered anymore. I can't imagine anyone getting worked up over tax rate suggestions on
Google, which is what our politics used to be about. Homogeneous societies (in many things,
such as race, culture, religion) have a lot of advantages.
@snorlax
If Sackler thought he'd be the hero to the colored hordes by cooking up his
white-gentile-seeking magical death formula Yaqub-like -- per current state-of-the-art theory
with Unz.com brain-trust -- he sure was kidding himself. The hordes tend not to be too
laudatory of rich elite Jews who spend money on gay paintings n' that shizz.
Sometimes I feel like I live in another country. Haven't used Google or Yahoo search
functions in about 8 years. You would think other people would start to catch on that BigTech
is the Iron Fist of PozFeed, but alas many sheeple remain.
Only use duckduckgo, and more recently ixquick.com or startpage.com
Google has over 85% of the search engine market share in India, Brazil, Spain, Italy,
Australia, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, France & Canada which is a bit odd given than Italy
& Australia are way more sane than Sweden, Belgium & Canada.
Sweden & Belgium are clearly in the palm of Google's Globalists & Mme
Lerner-Spectre is surely quite delighted.
ttps://www.statista.com/statistics/621418/most-popular-search-engines-in-sweden/
Google is not in business to do social engineering, it's in business to make money.
You reckon? I'm inclined to think that Google already has all the money it could ever
want. So if you have more than enough money, what else is there? The obvious answer is power.
Power is even more exciting and even sexier than money.
If modern capitalism really were just about money we wouldn't be facing the problems we're
facing now. But modern capitalism is much much more about power than money.
So Google's main priority is definitely more likely to be social engineering than making
money.
@anonymous
I don't use Google nor do I shop on Amazon. That is what gets me about Instapundit; every
other article, it seems, is how evil big tech is followed up by two links to Amazon for the
latest item that you don't need. Baffling, really.
I'm still trying to figure out why "colored people" is bad but "people of color" is
good.
The thinking is that "colored people" implies that the default is white and then people
can be modified by having a non-white color, while "people of color" implies that they are
the default.
@Anon "And
it is possible that when the skew is anti-right it is not caught as early as anti-left skews
are caught, due to company implicit political biases."
This all by itself could be sufficient to create a significant political bias. Imagine
that you paid much more attention to cleaning the left side of your windshield than your
right side. Without ever deliberately dirtying the right side, you would still end up with a
clean left side and a dirty right side.
@anonymous
I've done some comparisons. For most searches, DDG is just as good. For very recondite
searches Google is better. But I almost always use DDG because I loathe the vermin at Google.
@dfordoom
The same sort of people are always telling us that Hollywood has only money in view when it
produces movies and television shows. No one denies that they worship money, but
yes–power is the greater aphrodisiac.
Since
TAC
had been the primary
venue for my own writings, I was faced with a major challenge, but a sudden insight changed this picture.
I realized that many other writers and
columnists had also been purged from mainstream publications, and that these prominent victims could
constitute the core contributors of an entirely new publication. Hence was born
The Unz Review
,
entitled "An Alternative Media Selection" and bearing the descriptive subtitle "A Collection of Interesting,
Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media."
Obviously alternative media websites had
existed on the Internet from its earliest days, but nearly all of these had always been centered upon a
particular ideological or political orientation. But
The Unz Review
was intended to include most of
these frequently contradictory perspectives, hosting material both Left and Right, conspiratorial and
racialist, fascistic and anarchistic, with very lightly moderated comment-threads.
Although many doubted that a webzine
providing such varied and conflicting viewpoints would ever attract any significant audience, I do think
that we have. Our steadily rising readership reached nearly three million monthly pageviews and 45,000
monthly comments in September and October. Moreover, this strong and steady growth has come despite our
suffering some of the same "soft censorship," especially upon Social Media, that has been inflicted upon
most other alternative media websites, whether Left or Right, especially in the wake of Donald Trump's
unexpected election victory.
According to the Alexa.com estimates,
many of these other popular webzines have lost or more of their traffic-rankings since the January 2017
crackdown, while ours has increased by almost 50% during that same period. And according to Alexa, our daily
traffic surpassed that of
TAC
about one year ago, and has remained significantly ahead every month
since that time. Here's a comparison table of UNZ.com over the last couple of years with roughly forty
mid-size mostly alternative websites.
Alexa Traffic-Rankings
Ranking
Relative UNZ.com Improvement
Ranking
Website
Jan 2017
Since 1/16
Since 1/17
Since 1/18
Nov 2018
UNZ.com
39,119
--
--
--
26,503
newrepublic.com
11,383
+213
+133
+47
18,006
nakedcapitalism.com
51,168
+228
+189
+74
100,316
marginalrevolution.com
55,427
+98
+8
+18
40,621
lewrockwell.com
22,019
+222
+187
+32
42,826
antiwar.com
41,606
+187
+
120
+12
61,960
theamericanconservative.com
34,096
+46
+34
-0
30,982
counterpunch.org
19,149
+211
+229
+62
42,641
thesaker.is
44,295
-5
+36
-7
40,688
russia-insider.com
19,031
+120
+79
-22
23,050
theduran.com
33,073
--
+217
+68
71,114
veteranstoday.com
18,802
+205
+229
+28
41,899
rense.com
16,866
+285
+355
+139
51,978
voltairenet.org
17,946
+56
+89
+6
22,964
mondoweiss.net
69,188
+278
+127
+63
106,549
consortiumnews.com
68,994
+26
+110
+60
98,353
moonofalabama.org
75,814
-14
+58
-1
81,229
strategic-culture.org
72,432
-48
+
32
-19
65,006
globalresearch.ca
11,762
+379
+249
+48
27,792
truthdig.com
25,070
+141
+160
+2
44,212
opednews.com
79,623
+456
+
369
+60
253,143
ahtribune.com
153,977
+101
+124
+98
233,252
dissidentvoice.org
247,586
+69
+52
-21
254,496
whowhatwhy.org
183,844
+41
+46
+46
182,414
paulcraigroberts.org
48,201
+179
+107
+34
67,495
countercurrents.org
151,666
+260
+141
+46
247,371
alternet.org
5,658
+420
+257
+89
13,689
takimag.com
38,052
+167
+155
+56
65,617
vdare.com
83,556
+167
+161
+75
147,712
redice.tv
61,846
--
+243
+109
143,680
amren.com
60,626
+64
+111
+47
86,512
theoccidentalobserver.net
142,140
+95
+146
+68
236,670
occidentaldissent.com
242,298
-4
-9
+59
149,654
counter-currents.com
111,370
-6
+56
+18
118,054
therightstuff.biz
41,539
-24
+56
+41
43,949
heartiste.wordpress.com
56,543
+104
+64
+9
62,735
stormfront.org
21,459
+150
+230
+174
47,969
voxday.blogspot.com
92,884
+3
-11
+17
55,893
sott.net
14,755
+134
+150
+76
25,005
Less than two years ago, we were towards
the lower end of the traffic rankings of these dozens of webzines, and now we are near the very top. For
example, during this period our relative traffic ranking has grown by 229% over that of
Counterpunch
and 34% over that of
TAC
. Even more remarkably, our traffic was improved by 133% over the venerable
and very mainstream
New Republic
, placing us at roughly two-thirds of the readership of that
century-old publication.
Our stated role as a refuge for the
purged and the persecuted has become an increasingly important one as other publications have become
conforming to the ruling dictates of the Corporate Media, perhaps for fear that they would be branded
"Russian Fake News."
This unfortunate situation has been
especially true of the late Alex Cockburn's once fiercely iconoclastic
Counterpunch
, which has
shown the door to many of its most popular writers, including Israel Shamir, Paul Craig Roberts, Mike
Whitney, Diana Johnstone, Linh Dinh, and C.J. Hopkins, all of whom are now published here instead. As a
likely consequence,
Counterpunch
's traffic-ranking has dropped by nearly 60% since the beginning of
2017, falling far behind our own rapidly growing readership numbers.
The obvious problem with offering
ideological fare hardly different than that of mainstream left-liberal publications such as HuffPost and
Salon is that you are directly competing with HuffPost and Salon, and their vastly larger footprint assures
them the lion's share of the market.
It's interesting to note that this
tremendous improvement has occurred even as we published articles at least as controversial as have any of
these other publications, and in many cases, much more so.
Just as my own 2013 purge launched this
webzine, ongoing purges in the media are spurring its expansion, even into new forms of content.
For 17 years, Bonnie Faulkner's
hour-long
Guns & Butter
was one of the most popular and controversial shows airing on the leftwing
Pacifica
radio network, headquartered in Berkeley, California. And then just a few months ago,
the show was suddenly cancelled
and its complete archives scrubbed from the
KPFA
website,
allegedly for its "controversial" content (though I suspect that
Pacifica
's
severe financial problems
may have allowed outside donors the necessary leverage to finally remove a
long-standing thorn in their side).
Regardless, KPFA's loss is our gain, and
I'm very pleased to announce that
Guns & Butter
has now joined
The Unz Review
as our first podcast, with the website
software having been extended to handle that additional form of content. This includes the hundreds of
Guns & Butter
shows aired since 2001, with hopes that some additional past shows will soon be located
and added.
The most recent Guns & Butter podcast is
available on the Home page and the sidebars of all other pages, as are the complete archives here:
It was apparently the broadcast of
portions of the "Deep Truth" conference in July that led to the sudden cancellation of Guns & Butter, and
here's one of those shows, which featuring our own Philip Giraldi:
Josh Rogin
uses the Senate's 63-37 vote on S.J.Res. 54 earlier this week to make a very strange
claim:
The Senate's stunning bipartisan rebuke of President Trump's handling of U.S.-Saudi
relations shows that the internationalist, values-based foreign policy of the late senator
John McCain still holds significant weight in both parties [bold mine-DL].
At the end of his career, McCain was one of the foremost defenders of U.S. involvement in
the war on Yemen. I suppose it was fitting that he capped off a long career of supporting
unnecessary and illegal wars by proudly supporting a truly indefensible one. When U.S. support
for the war began in 2015, he and Lindsey Graham
chastised Obama for not doing enough to help the Saudi coalition. Needless to say,
he was an
early and eager supporter of the intervention . When McCain was asked about the coalition's
bombing campaign and the civilian casualties that it was causing, he denied
that there were any. "Thank God for the Saudis," he once
said , praising the kingdom for its role in fueling the war in Syria.
I
commented on McCain's support for the war on Yemen in a post last year:
In addition to dismissing the civilian casualties caused by the indiscriminate coalition
bombing campaign, McCain has reliably recited Saudi propaganda to provide cover for the war
while completely ignoring the catastrophic humanitarian crisis that their campaign has done
so much to cause.
McCain was the champion of a particular strain of aggressive interventionism that relied on
moralizing rhetoric to justify unjust actions. His foreign policy was "values-based" in the
sense that he would use "values" language to rally support for attacking certain regimes, but
when it came to applying the same standards to U.S. allies and clients McCain frequently became
mute or turned into a cynical apologist on behalf of states aligned with Washington. That is
certainly how he acted
when it came to the
Saudi coalition war on Yemen . Back when there were very few critics of the war in the
Senate, McCain was one of their
loudest opponents :
McCain incredibly described the Saudis as a "nation under attack" because of incursions
into Saudi territory that were provoked by the Saudi-led bombing campaign. Graham portrayed
the Saudis as victims of Yemeni "aggression," which has everything completely and obviously
backwards. It requires swallowing Saudi propaganda whole to argue that the Saudis and their
allies have been acting in self-defense, and that is what McCain and Graham tried to do. Both
repeatedly asserted that the Houthis are Iranian proxies when the best evidence suggests that
Iran's role in the conflict has always been negligible, and then justified their complete
indifference to the consequences of the Saudi-led war by complaining about Iranian behavior
elsewhere. Needless to say, the humanitarian crisis brought on by the Saudi-led bombing
campaign and blockade never once came up in their remarks, but I'm sure if they ever do
mention it they'll blame it on Iran somehow.
McCain used many of the same cynical and dishonest arguments then that Trump administration
officials use now. The senators that voted for S.J.Res. 54 were not following McCain's example
and they were definitely not embracing the kind of foreign policy he supported. On the
contrary, the success of the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution this week was as much a rebuke to
McCain's foreign policy legacy as it was a rebuke to Trump's shameless Saudi First behavior.
Opposition to the war on Yemen was something that McCain vehemently rejected, and it is simply
and obviously wrong to credit McCain's foreign policy views for the antiwar victory that Sens.
Sanders, Murphy, Lee, and their colleagues won this week. For the last twenty-five years,
McCain never saw a U.S.-backed war he couldn't support, and that included the war on Yemen.
When the Senate voted to advance S.J.Res. 54 on Wednesday, they were voting against the war
that McCain had vocally backed for years.
Gage
Skidmore /
Charles Haynes /Flickr Josh Rogin
uses the Senate's 63-37 vote on S.J.Res. 54 earlier this week to make a very strange claim:
The Senate's stunning bipartisan rebuke of President Trump's handling of U.S.-Saudi
relations shows that the internationalist, values-based foreign policy of the late senator
John McCain still holds significant weight in both parties [bold mine-DL].
At the end of his career, McCain was one of the foremost defenders of U.S. involvement in
the war on Yemen. I suppose it was fitting that he capped off a long career of supporting
unnecessary and illegal wars by proudly supporting a truly indefensible one. When U.S. support
for the war began in 2015, he and Lindsey Graham
chastised Obama for not doing enough to help the Saudi coalition. Needless to say,
he was an
early and eager supporter of the intervention . When McCain was asked about the coalition's
bombing campaign and the civilian casualties that it was causing, he denied
that there were any. "Thank God for the Saudis," he once
said , praising the kingdom for its role in fueling the war in Syria.
I
commented on McCain's support for the war on Yemen in a post last year:
In addition to dismissing the civilian casualties caused by the indiscriminate coalition
bombing campaign, McCain has reliably recited Saudi propaganda to provide cover for the war
while completely ignoring the catastrophic humanitarian crisis that their campaign has done
so much to cause.
McCain was the champion of a particular strain of aggressive interventionism that relied on
moralizing rhetoric to justify unjust actions. His foreign policy was "values-based" in the
sense that he would use "values" language to rally support for attacking certain regimes, but
when it came to applying the same standards to U.S. allies and clients McCain frequently became
mute or turned into a cynical apologist on behalf of states aligned with Washington. That is
certainly how he acted
when it came to the
Saudi coalition war on Yemen . Back when there were very few critics of the war in the
Senate, McCain was one of their
loudest opponents :
McCain incredibly described the Saudis as a "nation under attack" because of incursions
into Saudi territory that were provoked by the Saudi-led bombing campaign. Graham portrayed
the Saudis as victims of Yemeni "aggression," which has everything completely and obviously
backwards. It requires swallowing Saudi propaganda whole to argue that the Saudis and their
allies have been acting in self-defense, and that is what McCain and Graham tried to do. Both
repeatedly asserted that the Houthis are Iranian proxies when the best evidence suggests that
Iran's role in the conflict has always been negligible, and then justified their complete
indifference to the consequences of the Saudi-led war by complaining about Iranian behavior
elsewhere. Needless to say, the humanitarian crisis brought on by the Saudi-led bombing
campaign and blockade never once came up in their remarks, but I'm sure if they ever do
mention it they'll blame it on Iran somehow.
McCain used many of the same cynical and dishonest arguments then that Trump administration
officials use now. The senators that voted for S.J.Res. 54 were not following McCain's example
and they were definitely not embracing the kind of foreign policy he supported. On the
contrary, the success of the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution this week was as much a rebuke to
McCain's foreign policy legacy as it was a rebuke to Trump's shameless Saudi First behavior.
Opposition to the war on Yemen was something that McCain vehemently rejected, and it is simply
and obviously wrong to credit McCain's foreign policy views for the antiwar victory that Sens.
Sanders, Murphy, Lee, and their colleagues won this week. For the last twenty-five years,
McCain never saw a U.S.-backed war he couldn't support, and that included the war on Yemen.
When the Senate voted to advance S.J.Res. 54 on Wednesday, they were voting against the war
that McCain had vocally backed for years.
The role that the U.S. Congress has assumed for itself as a player in foreign policy
exhibits an odd and indefensible pattern these days. Senator Chris Murphy calls it a "double
standard," although that might be too mild a term. On one hand there are vigorous efforts to
insert Congress into the negotiation of an agreement on Iran's nuclear program. The efforts
extend even to attempts to interfere in the details of what is being negotiated, as reflected
in a string of amendments being considered in debate in the Senate this week on a bill laying
out a procedure for Congress to pass a quick judgment on the agreement. On the other hand
there is inaction, with little or no prospect of any action, on an authorization for the use
of military force against the so-called Islamic State.
Pillar is right that this is just the opposite of what Congress should be doing. If there is
a time when Congress ought to be deferring to the executive on foreign policy, it is when the
U.S. is involved in negotiations with other governments. The same people that claim to be
horrified by the idea of "535 commanders-in-chief" believe that they must sound off early and
often on every detail of a complex negotiated settlement. War can be left to the discretion of
the president and his officials, but not diplomacy. The same members that can't be bothered to
assume their proper constitutional responsibilities and happily yield to one illegal
presidential war after another cannot wait to meddle in a diplomatic process that, if
successful, will make a future conflict less likely.
Interventionists in Congress have no problem if a president starts wars on his own, because
he is pursuing the policy they would have voted for anyway if they were bothered to vote on
such things. They are alarmed by negotiations that could make it more difficult for a
future president to attack the regime involved in the talks. These hawks have excessive
confidence that military action can "solve" problems overseas, and so they don't to impose
limits on what the U.S. does in its foreign wars. They tend to see diplomacy as nothing but
appeasement and therefore something that should be undermined, second-guessed, and sabotaged as
much as possible.
Other members of Congress have no strong ideological motivation for this behavior, but
simply want to be able to grandstand on major issues without suffering serious political
consequences. They are glad to avoid having to vote one way or another on a war, since that
potentially could come back to haunt them if the war drags on, if it fails, or if many
Americans are killed. It's safer and easier for them to cheer on a president's illegal war when
it's popular and then start griping about it when it goes badly, and because they never cast a
vote one for or against the war they can have it both ways. If Congressional meddling succeeds
in damaging negotiations, any later costs to the U.S. from that missed opportunity won't be
linked back to the meddling members of Congress. If the meddling doesn't work as intended, most
people will quickly forget it. In the meantime, the meddlers will get credit for "standing up"
against appeasement or whatever nonsensical description they choose to use. Unfortunately,
there is normally no political cost for members of Congress that want to use diplomacy with an
unpopular government as an excuse to demagogue and look "tough" to the voters back home. That
is why many of them will try to interfere with U.S. diplomacy while giving the president free
rein to wage illegal wars for as long as he wants.
After reading Josh Marshall/David Frum debate on the nuclear deal yesterday, I found one of
the most effective Frum's arguments was liberals are claiming it is 2002 Iraq/n again. (Fair
argument considering Chait's great note on the 61 times Kristol uses
Churchill/Chamberlain/Hitler references.) Trying to avoid historical analogies, I am still
looking for actual evidence that Iran is building the bomb. The conservative argument still
rest on Iran still wants the bomb and the deal can't absolutely stop them.
Any thoughts on Stewart on Judith Miller interview on why the press accepted the
government's point that Iraq was building the bomb. Living through 2002, I was against the
Iraq War because I did not find the Bush administration WMD argument convincing enough and
felt it was a lot of heresy evidence. And i am seeing a similar argument with Iran.
This is from 1999 and in 2018 we see that Mills was right.
Notable quotes:
"... Personnel were constantly shifting back and forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. ..."
"... the military had become an active political force. Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference. And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military. ..."
"... Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." ..."
"... In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical, and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States. ..."
"... The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. ..."
"... Mills's prediction that both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more dominated by the military ..."
"... Business firms, still the most powerful force in American life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always choose the latter over the former. ..."
"... Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. ..."
One of the crucial arguments Mills made in The Power Elite was that the emergence of
the Cold War completely transformed the American public's historic opposition to a permanent
military establishment in the United States. In deed, he stressed that America's military elite
was now linked to its economic and political elite. Personnel were constantly shifting back and
forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had
become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by
the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. And while all these links between the
economy and the military were being forged, the military had become an active political force.
Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference.
And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and
appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military.
Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life
constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public
opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are
attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." Their goal was
nothing less than a redefinition of reality -- one in which the American people would come to
accept what Mills called "an emergency without a foreseeable end." "
War or a high state of war
preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States,"
Mills wrote. In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a
genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the
military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed
permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical,
and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States.
Much as Mills wrote, it remains true today that Congress is extremely friendly to the
military, at least in part because the military has become so powerful in the districts of most
congressmen. Military bases are an important source of jobs for many Americans, and government
spending on the military is crucial to companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which
manufacture military equipment. American firms are the leaders in the world's global arms
market, manufacturing and exporting weapons everywhere. Some weapons systems never seem to die,
even if, as was the case with a "Star Wars" system designed to destroy incoming missiles, there
is no demonstrable military need for them.
Yet despite these similarities with the 1950s, both the world and the role that America
plays in that world have changed. For one thing, the United States has been unable to muster
its forces for any sustained use in any foreign conflict since Vietnam. Worried about the
possibility of a public backlash against the loss of American lives, American presidents either
refrain from pursuing military adventures abroad or confine them to rapid strikes, along the
lines pursued by Presidents Bush and Clinton in Iraq. Since 1989, moreover, the collapse of
communism in Russia and Eastern Europe has undermined the capacity of America's elites to
mobilize support for military expenditures. China, which at the time Mills wrote was considered a serious threat, is now viewed by American businessmen as a source of great potential
investment. Domestic political support for a large and permanent military establishment in the
United States, in short, can no longer be taken for granted.
The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a
dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. At the time
Mills wrote, defense expenditures constituted roughly 60 percent of all federal outlays and
consumed nearly 10 percent of the U. S. gross domestic product. By the late 1990s, those
proportions had fallen to 17 percent of federal outlays and 3.5 percent of GDP. Nearly three
million Americans served in the armed forces when The Power Elite appeared, but that
number had dropped by half at century's end. By almost any account, Mills's prediction that
both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more
dominated by the military is not borne out by historical developments since his time.
And how could he have been right? Business firms, still the most powerful force in American
life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever
they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their
employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice
between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always
choose the latter over the former.
Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in
American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. Now
it would be more correct to say that America's economic elite finds more in common with
economic elites in other countries than it does with the military elite of its own....
"... The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense ..."
"... The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. ..."
The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on
Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense like this:
Secretary Pompeo
* @SecPompeo
Iran's regime has no interest in easing Yemeni suffering; the
mullahs don't even care for ordinary Iranians. Saudi Arabia has
invested billions to relieve suffering in #Yemen. Iran has
invested zero.
C10.8K 11:02 AM-Nov 28, 2018 в
The truth is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have used their donations as another weapon of
war while doing everything in their power to worsen the humanitarian crisis that their policies
created. Saudi "aid" efforts have been denounced by humanitarian organizations as a "war
tactic," and the Saudi government has used its donations to buy
good publicity from aid agencies and silence criticism. The "investments" that the Saudi
coalition governments have made are little more than poorly-concealed bribes to relieve
international pressure, and these same governments have used their donations as leverage to
blackmail the U.N. in the past.
The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be
suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's
intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. The governments responsible for
causing the displacement of millions of people and creating famine conditions potentially
affecting up to 14 million do not merit praise for throwing a little money at the catastrophe
they have unleashed. Iran's interest in assisting suffering Yemenis or lack thereof is truly
beside the point when it is the Saudi coalition backed by the U.S. that has caused so much of
that suffering. War criminals do not get credit when they throw some cash at the wreckage of
the country they have destroyed, and Pompeo's attempt to give Saudi Arabia credit for
"relieving" suffering in Yemen is as perverse and disgusting as it gets.
Pompeo's statements about saudi support is absolutely astonishing in a very bad way.
Does he actually believe such nonsense? Is he being fed these gross distortions of reality
by his Iran working group led by Hook?
At some point,these lies go beyond the absurd, they go beyond propaganda, they become for
the world to see a war monger's mantra and justification for an attack on Iran.
Pompeo and bolton have gained world wide recognition as being mindless war mongers with
much power but to continue with absurd twisting of facts on the ground really does this
country a huge disservice-meanwhile the population in yemen starve.
Where is the justice, where is the humanity amongst these lies?
"... With the advent of Obama, many peace leaders and followers joined the Obama political machine .Those who were not co-opted were quickly disillusioned on all counts. Obama continued the ongoing wars and added new ones -- Libya, Honduras, Syria. The US occupation in Iraq led to new extremist militia armies which preceded to defeat US trained vassal armies up to the gates of Baghdad. In short time Obama launched a flotilla of warships and warplanes to the South China Sea and dispatched added troops to Afghanistan. ..."
"... The anti-war movement which started in opposition to the Iraq war was marginalized by the two dominant parties. The result was the multiplication of new wars. By the second year of Obama's presidency the US was engaged in seven wars. ..."
"... The international conditions are ripening. Washington has alienated countries around the world ;it is challenged by allies and faces formidable rivals. The domestic economy is polarized and the elites are divided. ..."
Over the past three decades, the US government has engaged in over a dozen wars, none of
which have evoked popular celebrations either before, during or after. Nor did the government
succeed in securing popular support in its efforts to confront the economic crises of 2008
– 2009.
This paper will begin by discussing the major wars of our time, namely the two US invasions
of Iraq . We will proceed to analyze the nature of the popular response and the political
consequences.
In the second section we will discuss the economic crises of 2008 -2009, the government
bailout and popular response. We will conclude by focusing on the potential powerful changes
inherent in mass popular movements.
The Iraq War and the US Public
In the run-up to the two US wars against Iraq, (1990 – 01 and 2003 – 2011) there
was no mass war fever, nor did the public celebrate the outcome. On the contrary both wars were
preceded by massive protests in the US and among EU allies. The first Iraqi invasion was
opposed by the vast-majority of the US public despite a major mass media and regime propaganda
campaign backed by President George H. W. Bush. Subsequently, President Clinton launched a
bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 with virtually no public support or
approval.
March 20, 2003, President George W. Bush launched the second major war against Iraq despite
massive protests in all major US cities. The war was officially concluded by President Obama in
December 2011. President Obama's declaration of a successful conclusion failed to elicit
popular agreement.
Several questions arise:
Why mass opposition at the start of the Iraq wars and why did they fail to continue?
Why did the public refuse to celebrate President Obama's ending of the war in 2011?
Why did mass protests of the Iraq wars fail to produce durable political vehicles to
secure the peace?
The Anti-Iraq War Syndrome
The massive popular movements which actively opposed the Iraq wars had their roots in
several historical sources. The success of the movements that ended the Viet Nam war, the ideas
that mass activity could resist and win was solidly embedded in large segments of the
progressive public. Moreover, they strongly held the idea that the mass media and Congress
could not be trusted; this reinforced the idea that mass direct action was essential to reverse
Presidential and Pentagon war policies.
The second factor encouraging US mass protest was the fact that the US was internationally
isolated. Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush wars faced hostile regime and mass
opposition in Europe, the Middle East and in the UN General Assembly. US activists felt that
they were part of a global movement which could succeed.
Thirdly the advent of Democratic President Clinton did not reverse the mass anti-war
movements.The terror bombing of Iraq in December 1998 was destructive and Clinton's war against
Serbia kept the movements alive and active To the extent that Clinton avoided large scale
long-term wars, he avoided provoking mass movements from re-emerging during the latter part of
the 1990's.
The last big wave of mass anti-war protest occurred from 2003 to 2008. Mass anti-war protest
to war exploded soon after the World Trade Center bombings of 9/11. White House exploited the
events to proclaim a global 'war on terror', yet the mass popular movements interpreted the
same events as a call to oppose new wars in the Middle East.
Anti-war leaders drew activists of the entire decade, envisioning a 'build-up' which could
prevent the Bush regime from launching a series of wars without end. Moreover, the
vast-majority of the public was not convinced by officials' claims that Iraq, weakened and
encircled, was stocking 'weapons of mass destruction' to attack the US.
Large scale popular protests challenged the mass media, the so called respectable press and
ignored the Israeli lobby and other Pentagon warlords demanding an invasion of Iraq. The
vast-majority of American, did not believe they were threatened by Saddam Hussain they felt a
greater threat from the White House's resort to severe repressive legislation like the Patriot
Act. Washington's rapid military defeat of Iraqi forces and its occupation of the Iraqi state
led to a decline in the size and scope of the anti-war movement but not to its potential mass
base.
Two events led to the demise of the anti-war movements. The anti-war leaders turned from
independent direct action to electoral politics and secondly, they embraced and channeled their
followers to support Democratic presidential candidate Obama. In large part the movement
leaders and activists believed that direct action had failed to prevent or end the previous two
Iraq wars. Secondly, Obama made a direct demagogic appeal to the peace movement – he
promised to end wars and pursue social justice at home.
With the advent of Obama, many peace leaders and followers joined the Obama political
machine .Those who were not co-opted were quickly disillusioned on all counts. Obama continued
the ongoing wars and added new ones -- Libya, Honduras, Syria. The US occupation in Iraq led to
new extremist militia armies which preceded to defeat US trained vassal armies up to the gates
of Baghdad. In short time Obama launched a flotilla of warships and warplanes to the South
China Sea and dispatched added troops to Afghanistan.
The mass popular movements of the previous two decades were totally disillusioned, betrayed
and disoriented. While most opposed Obama's 'new' and 'old wars' they struggled to find new
outlets for their anti-war beliefs. Lacking alternative anti-war movements, they were
vulnerable to the war propaganda of the media and the new demagogue of the right. Donald Trump
attracted many who opposed the war monger Hilary Clinton.
The Bank Bailout: Mass Protest
Denied
In 2008, at the end of his presidency, President George W. Bush signed off on a massive
federal bailout of the biggest Wall Street banks who faced bankruptcy from their wild
speculative profiteering.
In 2009 President Obama endorsed the bailout and urged rapid Congressional approval.
Congress complied to a $700-billion- dollar handout ,which according to Forbes (July 14, 2015)
rose to $7.77 trillion. Overnight hundreds of thousands of American demanded Congress rescind
the vote. Under immense popular protest, Congress capitulated. However President Obama and the
Democratic Party leadership insisted: the bill was slightly modified and approved. The 'popular
will' was denied. The protests were neutralized and dissipated. The bailout of the banks
proceeded, while several million households watched while their homes were foreclosed ,despite
some local protests. Among the anti-bank movement, radical proposals flourished, ranging from
calls to nationalize them, to demands to let the big banks go bankrupt and provide federal
financing for co-operatives and community banks.
Clearly the vast-majority of the American people were aware and acted to resist
corporate-collusion to plunder taxpayers.
Conclusion: What is to be Done?
Mass popular mobilizations are a reality in the United States. The problem is that they have
not been sustained and the reasons are clear : they lacked political organization which would
go beyond protests and reject lesser evil policies.
The anti-war movement which started in opposition to the Iraq war was marginalized by the
two dominant parties. The result was the multiplication of new wars. By the second year of
Obama's presidency the US was engaged in seven wars.
By the second year of Trump's Presidency the US was threatening nuclear wars against Russia,
Iran and other 'enemies' of the empire. While public opinion was decidedly opposed, the
'opinion' barely rippled in the mid-term elections.
Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us but
they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the Democratic
Party . Before the movements can turn direct action into effective political and economic
transformations, they need to build struggles at every level from the local to the
national.
The international conditions are ripening. Washington has alienated countries around the
world ;it is challenged by allies and faces formidable rivals. The domestic economy is
polarized and the elites are divided.
Mobilizations, as in France today, are self-organized through the internet; the mass media
are discredited. The time of liberal and rightwing demagogues is passing; the bombast of Trump
arouses the same disgust as ended the Obama regime.
Optimal conditions for a new comprehensive movement that goes beyond piecemeal reforms is on
the agenda. The question is whether it is now or in future years or decades?
Mass protest, which must ignore the mass media, depends on organizers. No organizers--no
protest. Since organizers are mostly working for somebodies agenda, those agendas apparently
don't want mass protest against war. They only want to push multi-genderism and minority
resistance, these days.
" Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us
but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the
Democratic Party . Before the movements can turn direct action into effective political and
economic transformations, they need to build struggles at every level from the local to the
national. "
.gov gives not one damn what the people think and they willl do what pleases their
masters. We are allowed to "vote" once in a while to maintain the illusion that they
care.
Very few Americans are anti-war. They are just fine with endless war and the killing of
millions of people with brown skin for any reason the government gives. Even the so-called
anti-war protesters of the Sixties are now pro war. Back then there was a draft, and they
were at risk of dying in the war. Turns they were only against themselves dying, not somebody
else's child. The volunteer army is staffed by the unfortunates of American society who have
very few options except the military. Uneducated rural whites and inner city black youths are
today's military. Poor white trash and ghetto blacks. Who cares if they die? That's the
attitude of the Sixties anti-war crowd. Hypocrites.
A universal draft, male and female, would stop all the wars in a day.
True, I also believe many Americans turn their heads toward these endless/unneeded wars
because the "enemies" mortar fire is not landing in our own backyard.
But White people know if they pray, buy groceries, buy clothes for kids, keep their
appearance up... then losing jobs & middle class is only an obstacle if you don't work
harder... Fascism is about responsibility, looking and acting like the winner class. White
people will enlist in military, police, fire department... will work harder... will work 2-4
jobs... will blame themselves for everything.
No warning or reason given for closures,Customers, employees and communities are outraged
after Papa Gino's Pizza abruptly closed dozens of locations across New England overnight.
Now that congress serves only as a mechanism for creating and maintaining skimming
operations and rigging all markets, it is imperative that citizens get no information. Since
organized crime also owns the major media outlets, that is an easy task. With no information
in the mainstream there is no anti war and no anti bank.
Gone, like the people who wanted a real 9/11 investigation. Yahoos out there still think
that if it was an inside job someone would have spoke out by now . Lol
They are all their, they are just silenced in corporate main stream media whilst corporate
main stream media absolutely 'SCREAMS' about identity politics, not an accident. Identity
politics is the deep state and shadow government plan to silence the masses about fiscal and
foreign policy.
For example, even though I am centre left, I was there in the beginning of the alt right,
it was not white supremacy for the first few weeks it was Libertarian vs corporate
Republican, then the deep state and shadow government stepped in and using corporate main
stream media, re-branded alt-right as white supremacy, is was really fast.
Most people don't even know alt-right started out as very much Libertarian taking on the
corporate state and that is what triggered that attack and a stream of fake right wingers
(deep state agents) screaming they were the alt-right together with corporate main stream
media, to ensure Libertarian where silenced.
Look at it now, how much do you here from Libertarians, practically nothing, every time
they try, they are targeted as alt-right which they were as in the alternate to corporate
Republicans much the same as the Corporate Democrats. From my perspective the real left and
the Libertarians had much more in common, than the corporate Republicans and the corporate
Democrats (both attacking the libertarians and the greens to silence them).
They are all there fighting, just totally silenced in corporate main stream media, you
have to go to https://www.rt.com/ to find
them.
Bankers control the CFR, the CFR controls the media and most gov positions and most of the
deepstate 3 letter agencies.. Everything said is tracked by the NSA and everywhere you go is
tracked by your phone and cars. Ever wonder how they take over a grass root movement so fast?
Think about it.
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every
Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether
he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass
arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city,
people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the
downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing
left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people
with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly
have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's
thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom
enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and
simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
The United States is now too big for popular protest. How can I, living in California,
have common cause with someone living in New York? We live on opposite sides of this
continent and have wildly different climates. Our heavy hitters are in Technology while New
York has Banking and Wall St.
Our elected officials are unable to get crap done in the same manner we're unable to get a
good protest underway. We can withdraw somewhat or go off grid where possible but that's
about it.
African American lack of support for the Iraq war:
According to several polls taken right before the war, only a minority of African-Americans
supported the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. Most notably, a poll by the
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies had found that only 19 percent of
African-Americans supported it.
That is a striking statistic, especially considering that more than 70 percent of white
Americans were in favor of the military invasion, according to some polls.
Also note that 90% of white males were for that illegal war of aggression.
the left is so obsessed with getting trump, they can do nothing else. they are so *******
stoopid, that they wont even try to develop someone to beat trump. they put 100% of their
energy in hating trump. they are blinded by hatred.
the end is nigh and there's nothing to be done about it.... 10 years and thats it....
beyond that and event horizon... black hole... no one knows. ai terminator coming soon...
thats all i can see.
Most thinking people are not wanting to be part of a movement that will be co-opted for
someone else's political gain. I would rather prepare myself and family for the inevitable
collapse of the economy and perhaps more that awaits us. That's enough to keep me busy. I
can't change the whole world but I can prepare to help my family friends and neighbors.
In answer to the the question posed by the headerof this article, they have either been
exiled from 'respectable' media or are stuck yelling "Trump! Trump! Trump! Russia! Russia!
Russia" like a poorly programmed NPC caught in an infinite loop.
The hidden hand behind the puppet show has done a hell of a job massaging the masses, and
turning their minds into mush.
"Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us
but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the
Democratic Party ."
Exactly! If there are any anti-war people out there they sure as hell are not with the
Democratic Party. Those leftist lunatics are the most destructive political group on this
planet. Their thinking is 'divide & conquer', incite racial tensions, spew hatred,
promoting that killing babies before they are born, or even on the day they are born is
awesome. One has to wonder if people that evil even have souls.
As for anti-bankers... is this author off his rocker? He's not fooling anyone by trying to
present the theory that if there are any consciencous objectors out there they would be
supporters of the Democratic party. That thought is outright laughable. Even worse, to try to
create this new narrative by writing this type of article is absolutely despicable.
Fortunately, not the least bit convincing. People know better.
" Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us
but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the
Democratic Party "
OK, so..... it's the Democrat Party, not the Democratic Party. Not like anyone gives a
**** what words mean any more, but.... whatever. Use the right ******* words or..... *******
don't. Not like any of this **** matters any more at this level.
And not all of us are ******* Democrats. Neither party is really anti-war or anti-bank
now, so the red/blue thing has little relevance to those subjects. We all argue about much
more important issues now like transgender bathrooms and whether Kanye West is a racist for
supporting Trump or not.
Politics has become a black hole collapsing on us. Black hole don't give a ****. Look at
that black hole. It just ate a star and became bigger. It don't care.
Sorry but I do not see Trump as "threatening nuclear war".
Surely some of the Deep Staters did. But it's hard to see Trump as in control. His
presidency has been great for exposing how things really work. That's worth a lot. If only
the idiots would pay attention. But they won't. They're too busy placing great importance on
the trifling and little or none on the critically important.
Excuse me I have to run now and get the latest iPhone.
"... The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense ..."
"... The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. ..."
The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on
Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense like this:
Secretary Pompeo
* @SecPompeo
Iran's regime has no interest in easing Yemeni suffering; the
mullahs don't even care for ordinary Iranians. Saudi Arabia has
invested billions to relieve suffering in #Yemen. Iran has
invested zero.
C10.8K 11:02 AM-Nov 28, 2018 в
The truth is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have used their donations as another weapon of
war while doing everything in their power to worsen the humanitarian crisis that their policies
created. Saudi "aid" efforts have been denounced by humanitarian organizations as a "war
tactic," and the Saudi government has used its donations to buy
good publicity from aid agencies and silence criticism. The "investments" that the Saudi
coalition governments have made are little more than poorly-concealed bribes to relieve
international pressure, and these same governments have used their donations as leverage to
blackmail the U.N. in the past.
The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be
suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's
intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. The governments responsible for
causing the displacement of millions of people and creating famine conditions potentially
affecting up to 14 million do not merit praise for throwing a little money at the catastrophe
they have unleashed. Iran's interest in assisting suffering Yemenis or lack thereof is truly
beside the point when it is the Saudi coalition backed by the U.S. that has caused so much of
that suffering. War criminals do not get credit when they throw some cash at the wreckage of
the country they have destroyed, and Pompeo's attempt to give Saudi Arabia credit for
"relieving" suffering in Yemen is as perverse and disgusting as it gets.
Pompeo's statements about saudi support is absolutely astonishing in a very bad way.
Does he actually believe such nonsense? Is he being fed these gross distortions of reality
by his Iran working group led by Hook?
At some point,these lies go beyond the absurd, they go beyond propaganda, they become for
the world to see a war monger's mantra and justification for an attack on Iran.
Pompeo and bolton have gained world wide recognition as being mindless war mongers with
much power but to continue with absurd twisting of facts on the ground really does this
country a huge disservice-meanwhile the population in yemen starve.
Where is the justice, where is the humanity amongst these lies?
"... Everyone knows it's the US presence in the Middle East which creates terrorists, both as proxies of and in resistance to the US imperial presence (and often one and then the other). So reading Orwellian language, Pompeo is saying the US wants to maximize Islamic terrorism in order to provide a pretext for creeping totalitarianism at home and abroad. ..."
"... The real reason is to maintain the petrodollar system, but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence never to mention it among both supporters and opponents of Trump. ..."
"... everyone knows why the usa is in the middle east.. to support the war industry, which is heavily tied to the financial industry.. up is down and down is up.. that is why the usa is great friends with ksa and israel and a sworn enemy of iran... what they don't say is they are a sworn enemy of humanity and the thought that the world can continue with their ongoing madness... ..."
"... The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF ..."
Trump also floated the idea of removing U.S. troops from the Middle East, citing the lower price of oil as a reason to withdraw.
"Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason to is Israel ," Trump said. "Oil is becoming less and less
of a reason because we're producing more oil now than we've ever produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point
where you don't have to stay there."
It is only Israel, it is no longer the oil, says Trump. But the nuclear armed Israel does not need U.S. troops for its protection.
And if it is no longer the oil, why is the U.S. defending the Saudis?
Trump's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo disagrees with his boss. In a Wall Street journal op-ed today he claims that
The U.S.-Saudi Partnership
Is Vital because it includes much more then oil:
[D]egrading U.S.-Saudi ties would be a grave mistake for the national security of the U.S. and its allies.
The kingdom is a powerful force for stability in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is working to secure Iraq's fragile democracy
and keep Baghdad tethered to the West's interests, not Tehran's. Riyadh is helping manage the flood of refugees fleeing Syria's
civil war by working with host countries, cooperating closely with Egypt, and establishing stronger ties with Israel. Saudi
Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other terrorist organizations.
Saudi oil production and economic stability are keys to regional prosperity and global energy security.
Where and when please has Saudi Arabia "managed the flood of refugees fleeing Syria's civil war". Was that when it
emptied its jails of violent criminals and sent them to wage jihad against the Syrian people? That indeed 'managed' to push
millions to flee from their homes.
Saudi Arabia might be many things but "a powerful force for stability" it is not. Just ask 18 million Yemenis who, after years
of Saudi bombardment, are near to death for lack of
food .
Pompeo's work for the Saudi dictator continued today with a Senate briefing on Yemen. The Senators will soon vote on a resolution
to end the U.S. support for the war. In his prepared remarks Pompeo wrote:
The suffering in Yemen grieves me, but if the United States of America was not involved in Yemen, it would be a hell of a lot
worse.
What could be worse than a famine that threatens two third of the population?
If the U.S. and Britain would not support the Saudis and Emirates the war would end within a day or two. The Saudi and UAE
planes are maintained by U.S. and British specialists. The Saudis still
seek 102 more U.S. military personal to
take care of their planes. It would be easy for the U.S. to stop such recruiting of its veterans.
It is the U.S. that
holds up an already
watered down UN Security Council resolution that calls for a ceasefire in Yemen:
The reason for the delay continues to be a White House worry about angering Saudi Arabia, which strongly opposes the resolution,
multiple sources say. CNN reported earlier this month that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, "threw a fit" when
presented with an early draft of the document, leading to a delay and further discussions among Western allies on the matter.
There is really nothing in Trump's list on which the Saudis consistently followed through. His alliance with MbS brought him
no gain and a lot of trouble.
Trump protected MbS from the consequences of murdering Jamal Khashoggi. He hoped to gain leverage with that. But that is not
how MbS sees it. He now knows that Trump will not confront him no matter what he does. If MbS "threws a fit" over a UN Security
Council resolution, the U.S. will drop it. When he launches his next 'adventure', the U.S. will again cover his back. Is this
the way a super power is supposed to handle a client state?
If Trump's instincts really tell him that U.S. troops should be removed from the Middle East and Afghanistan, something I doubt,
he should follow them. Support for the Saudi war on Yemen will not help to achieve that. Pandering to MbS is not MAGA.
Posted by b on November 28, 2018 at 03:12 PM |
Permalink
Comments Pompeo: "Saudi Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other
terrorist organizations."
Everyone knows it's the US presence in the Middle East which creates terrorists, both as proxies of and in resistance to
the US imperial presence (and often one and then the other). So reading Orwellian language, Pompeo is saying the US wants to maximize
Islamic terrorism in order to provide a pretext for creeping totalitarianism at home and abroad.
The real reason is to maintain the petrodollar system, but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence never to mention it among
both supporters and opponents of Trump.
There is really nothing in Trump's list on which the Saudis consistently followed through. His alliance with MbS brought him
no gain and a lot of trouble.
He did get to fondle the orb - although fuck knows what weirdness was really going on there.
thanks b... pompeo is a very bad liar... in fact - everything he says is about exactly the opposite, but bottom line is he is
a bad liar as he is thoroughly unconvincing..
everyone knows why the usa is in the middle east.. to support the war industry, which is heavily tied to the financial
industry.. up is down and down is up.. that is why the usa is great friends with ksa and israel and a sworn enemy of iran... what
they don't say is they are a sworn enemy of humanity and the thought that the world can continue with their ongoing madness...
oh, but don't forget to vote, LOLOL.... no wonder so many are strung out on drugs, and the pharma industry... opening up to
the msm is opening oneself up to the world george orwell described many years ago...
Take a wafer or two of silicon and just add water. The oil obsession has been eclipsed and within 20 years will be in absolute
disarray. The warmongers will invent new excuses.
A hypothetical: No extraordinary amounts of hydrocarbons exist under Southwest Asian ground; just an essential amount for domestic
consumption; in that case, would Zionistan exist where it's currently located and would either Saudi Arabia, Iraq and/or Iran
have any significance aside from being consumers of Outlaw US Empire goods? Would the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes/Picot
Secret Treaty have been made? If the Orinoco Oil Belt didn't exist, would Venezuela's government be continually targeted for Imperial
control? If there was no Brazilian offshore oil, would the Regime Change effort have been made there? Here the hypotheticals end
and a few basic yet important questions follow.
Previous to the 20th Century, why were Hawaii and Samoa wrested from their native residents and annexed to Empire? In what
way did the lowly family farmers spread across 19th Century United States further the growth of its Empire and contribute to the
above named annexations? What was the unspoken message sent to US elites contained within Frederic Jackson Turner's 1893 Frontier
Thesis ? Why is the dominant language of North America English, not French or Spanish?
None of these are rhetorical. All second paragraph questions I asked of my history students. And all have a bearing on b's
fundamental question.
b says, "And it its no longer the oil, why is the U.S. defending the Saudis?"
The US has a vital interest in protecting the narrative of 9/11. The Saudis supplied the patsies. Mossad and dual-citizen neocons
were the architects of the event. Hence, the US must avoid a nasty divorce from the Saudis. The Saudis are in a perfect blackmailing
position.
Of course, most Americans have no idea that the U.S. Shale Oil Industry is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme because of the
mainstream media's inability to report FACT from FICTION. However, they don't deserve all of the blame as the shale energy
industry has done an excellent job hiding the financial distress from the public and investors by the use of highly technical
jargon and BS.
S.A. is a thinly disguised US military base, hence the "strategic importance" and the relevance of the new Viceroy's previous
experience as a Four Star General. It's doubtful that any of the skilled personnel in the SA Air Force are other than former US/Nato.
A few princes might fancy themselves to be daring fighter pilots. In case of a Anglo-Zio war with Iran SA would be the most forward
US aircraft carrier. The Empire is sustained by its presumed military might and prizes nothing more than its strategically situated
bases. Saud would like to capture Yemen's oil fields, but the primary purpose of the air war is probably training. That of course
is more despicably cynical than mere conquest and genocide.
Trump is the ultimate deceiver/liar. Great actor reading from a script. The heel in the Fake wrestling otherwise known as US politics.
It almost sounds as if he is calling for an end of anymore significant price drops now that he has got Powell on board to limit
interest rate hikes. After all if you are the worlds biggest producer you dont want prices too low. These markets are all manipulated.
I cant imagine how much insider trading is going on. If you look at the oil prices, they started dropping in October with Iran
sanctions looming (before it was announced irans shipments to its 8 biggest buyers would be exempt) and at the height of the Khashoggi
event where sanctions were threatened and Saudi was making threats of their own. In a real free market prices increase amidst
supply uncertainty.
Regardless of what he says he wants and gets now, he is already planning a reversal. Thats how the big boys win, they know
whats coming and when the con the smaller fish to swim one way they are lined up with a big mouth wide open. Controlled chaos
and confusion. For every winner there must be a loser and the losers assets/money are food for the Gods of Money and War
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. My money is on the US to be in Yemen to protect them
from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis while in reality we will be there to secure the enormous oil fields
in the North. Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about. The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to
deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF
@ Pft who wrote: "The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order
to feed international finance/IMF"
BINGO!!! Those that control finance control most/all of everything else.
Saudi Arabia literally owns close to 8% of the United States economy through various financial instruments. Their public investment
funds and dark pools own large chunks from various strategic firms resting at the apex of western power such as Blackstone. Trump
and Pompeo would be stupid to cut off their nose to spite their face... It's all about the petrodollar, uncle sam will ride and
die with saudi barbaria. If push comes to shove and the saudis decide to untether themselves from the Empire, their sand kingdom
will probably be partitioned.
The oil certainly still plays an important role, the u.s. cannot maintain the current frack oil output for long. For Tronald's
term in office it will suffice, but hardly longer. (The frack gas supplies are much more substantial.)
Personal interests certainly also play a role, and finally one should not make u.s. foreign policy more rational than it is.
Much is also done because of traditions and personal convictions. Often they got it completely wrong and the result was a complete
failure.
Let us watch what Trump does with this or if the resolution makes it to daylight:
Senate advances Yemen resolution in rebuke to Trump
The Senate issued a sharp rebuke Wednesday to President Trump, easily advancing a resolution that would end U.S. military support
for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen's civil war despite a White House effort to quash the bill.
The administration launched an eleventh-hour lobbying frenzy to try to head off momentum for the resolution, dispatching
Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Capitol Hill in the morning and issuing a veto threat
less than an hour before the vote started.
But lawmakers advanced the resolution, 63-37, even as the administration vowed to stand by Saudi Arabia following outcry
over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"There's been a lot of rhetoric that's come from the White House and from the State Department on this issue," said Sen.
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "The rhetoric that I've heard and the broadcasts that we've
made around the world as to who we are have been way out of balance as it relates to American interests and American values."
[/] LINK
TheHill
But Mattis says there is no smoking gun to tie the Clown Thug-Prince to Kashoggi's killing.
TheHill
And Lyias @ 2 is a bingo. Always follow the fiat.
Soon, without any announcements, if they wish to maintain selling oil to China, KSA will follow Qatar. It will be priced in
Yuan...especially given the escalating U.S. trade war with China.
2019 holds interesting times. Order a truckload of popcorn.
Midwest For Truth , Nov 28, 2018 7:29:46 PM |
link
You would have to have your head buried in the sand to not see that the Saudi "Kings" are crypto-Zionistas. Carl Sagan once said,
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even
to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." And Mark Twain also
wrote "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Gee, not one taker amongst all these intelligent folk. From last to first: 1588's Protestant Wind allowed Elizabeth and her cronies
to literally keep their heads as Nature helped Drake defeat the Spanish Armada; otherwise, there would be no British Empire root
to the USA, thus no USA and no future Outlaw US Empire, the British Isles becoming a Hapsburg Imperial Property, and a completely
different historical lineage, perhaps sans World Wars and atomic weapons.
Turner's message was with the Frontier closed the "safety valve" of continental expansion defusing political tensions based
on economic inequalities had ceased to be of benefit and future policy would need to deal with that issue thus removing the Fear
Factor from the natives to immigrants, and from wide-open spaces to the inner cities. Whipsawing business cycles driving urban
labor's unrest, populist People's Party politics, and McKinley's 1901 assassination further drove his points home.
Nationwide, family farmers demanded Federal government help to create additional markets for their produce to generate price
inflation so they could remain solvent and keep their homesteads, which translated into the need to conduct international commerce
via the seas which required coaling stations--Hawaii and Samoa, amongst others--and a Blue Water Navy that eventually led to Alfred
T. Mahan's doctrine of Imperial Control of the Oceans still in use today.
As with Gengis Khan's death in 1227 that stopped the Mongol expansion to the English Channel that changed the course of European
history, and what was seen as the Protestant Wind being Divine Intervention, global history has several similar inflection points
turning the tide from one path to another. We don't know yet if the Outlaw US Empire's reliance on Saudi is such, but we can see
it turning from being a great positive to an equally potential great negative for the Empire--humanity as a whole, IMO, will benefit
greatly from an implosion and the relationship becoming a Great Negative helping to strip what remains of the Emperor's Clothing
from his torso so that nations and their citizens can deter the oncoming financialized economic suicide caused by massive debt
and climate chaos.
Vico's circle is about to intersect with Hegel's dialectic and generate a new temporal phase in human history. Although many
will find it hard to tell, the current direction points to a difficult change to a more positive course for humanity as a whole,
but it's also possible that disaster could strike with humanity's total or near extinction being the outcome--good arguments can
be made for either outcome, which ought to unsettle everyone: Yes, the times are that tenuous. But then, I'm merely a lonely historian
aware of a great many things, including the pitfall inherent in trying to predict future events.
"The suffering in Yemen grieves me, but if the United States of America was not involved in Yemen, it would be a hell of a lot
worse." And I'll bet Pompeo said that with a straight face, too. lmfao
And as for "...keep[ing] Baghdad tethered to the West's interests and not Tehran's," I'm guessing the "secretary" would have
us all agree "yeah, fk Iraqi sovereignty anyway. Besides, it's not like they share a border with Iran, or anything. Oh,
wait..."
p.s. Many thanks for all you have contributed to collective knowledge, b; I will be contacting you about making a contribution
by snail mail (I hate PayPal, too).
"... a powerful force for stability in the Middle East."
"Instability" more like it.
Paid for military coup in Egypt. Funding anti-Syrian terrorists. Ongoing tensions with Iran. Zip-all for the Palestinians.
WTF in Yemen. Wahhabi crazy sh_t (via Mosque building) across Asia. Head and hand chopping Friday specials the norm -- especially
of their South-Asian slave classes. Ok, so females can now drive cars -- woohoo. A family run business venture manipulating the
global oil trade and supporting US-petro-$ hegemony recently out of goat herding and each new generation 'initiated' in some Houston
secret society toe-touching shower and soap ceremonies before placement in the ruling hierarchy back home. But enough; they being
Semites makes it an offence to criticize in some 'free' democratic world domains.
Instead of the "rebuke to Trump" meme circulating around, I found
this statement to be more accurate:
"'Cutting off military aid to Saudi Arabia is the right choice for Yemen, the right choice for our national security, and the
right choice for upholding the Constitution,' Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action,
declared in a statement. ' Three years ago, the notion of Congress voting to cut off military support for Saudi Arabia would
have been politically laughable .'" [My Emphasis]
In other words, advancing Peace with Obama as POTUS wasn't going to happen, so this vote ought to be seen as an attack on Obama's
legacy as it's his policy that's being reconsidered and hopefully discontinued.
Trump, Israel and the Sawdi's. US no longer needs middle east oil for strategic supply. Trump is doing away with the petro-dollar
as that scam has run its course and maintenance is higher than returns. Saudi and other middle east oil is required for global
energy dominance.
Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package.
Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA
as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money
is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in
reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about.
The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international
finance/IMF .
@16 karlof1.. thanks for a broader historical perspective which you are able to bring to moa.. i enjoy reading your comments..
i don't have answers to ALL your questions earlier.. i have answers for some of them... you want to make it easy on us uneducated
folks and give us less questions, like b did in his post here, lol.... cheers james
The US Senate has advanced a measure to withdraw American support for a Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen.
In a blow to President Donald Trump, senators voted 63-37 to take forward a motion on ending US support.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary Jim Mattis had urged Senators not to back the motion, saying it would
worsen the situation in Yemen.
...
The vote in the Senate means further debate on US support for Saudi Arabia is expected next week.
However, correspondents say that even if the Senate ultimately passes the bipartisan resolution it has little chance of
being approved by the outgoing House of Representatives.
That is quite a slap for the Trump administration. It will have little consequences in the short term (or for Yemen) but it sets
a new direction in foreign polices towards the Saudis.
Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable
Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.
Take a look at some of the - informed - comments below the vid to which you linked. Then think again about an 'all electric
civilisation within a few years'. Yes, and Father Christmas will be providing everything that everyone in the world needs for
a NAmerican/European standard of living within the same time frame. Er - not.
'Renewables' are not going to save hitech industrial 'civilisation' from The Long Descent/Catabolic Collapse (qv). Apart from
any other consideration - and there are some other equally intractable ones - there is no - repeat NO - 'renewable' energy system
which doesn't rely crucially on energy subsidies from the fossil-hydrocarbon fuels, both to build it and to maintain it. They're
not stand-alone, self-bootstrapping technologies. Nor is there any realistic prospect that they ever will be. Fully renewable-power
hitech industrial civilisation is a non-deliverable mirage which is just drawing us ever further into the desert of irreversible
peak-energy/peak-everythig-else.
@16 karlof1. I also find your historical references very interesting. We do indeed seem to be at a very low point in the material
cycle, it will reverse in due course as is its want, hopefully we will live to see a positive change in humanity.
For example we know Tesla didn't succeed in splitting the planet in half, the way techno-psychotics fantasize. As for that
silly link, how typical of techno-wingnuts to respond to prosaic physical facts with fantasies. Anything to prop up faith in the
technocratic-fundamentalist religion. Meanwhile "electrical civilization" has always meant and will always mean fracking and coal,
until the whole fossil-fueled extreme energy nightmare is over.
Given the proven fact that the extreme energy civilization has done nothing but embark upon a campaign to completely destroy
humanity and the Earth (like in your Tesla fantasy), why would a non-psychopath want to prop it up anyway?
It is still the oil, even for the US. The Persian Gulf supplies 20% of world consumption, and Western Europe gets 40% of its oil
from OPEC countries, most of that from the Gulf. Even the US still imports 10% of its total consumption.
Peter AU 1 | Nov 28, 2018 9:44:50 PM | 20
b | Nov 29, 2018 2:33:04 AM | 23
USD as a world reserve currency could be one factor between the important ones. With non US support the saud land could crash
under neighbours pressure, that caos may be not welcomed.
Humble people around where I live have mentioned that time is speeding up its velocity; there seems to be a spiritual (evolutionary)/physical
interface effect or something...
Tolstoy, in the long theory-of-history exposition at the end of War and Peace, challenges 'the great man' of History idea,
spreading in his time, at the dawning of the so-called: European Romantic period of Beethoven, Goerte and Wagner, when
the unique person was glorified in the name of art, truth, whatever (eventually this bubble burst too, in the 20th C. and IMO
because of too much fervent worship in the Cult of the Temple of the Money God. Dostoyevki's great Crime and Punishment is all
about this issue.)
Tolstoy tries to describe a scientifically-determined historical process, dissing the 'great man of History' thesis. He was
thinking of Napoleon Bonaparte of course, the run-away upstart repulican, anathema to the established order. Tolstoy describes
it in the opening scene of the novel: a fascinating parlor-room conversation between a "liberal" woman of good-birth in the elite
circles of society and a military captain at the party.
...only tenuously relevant to karlofi1's great post touching upon the Theory of History as such; thanks.
Now as to the question: ¿Why is Trump supporting Saudi Arabia? Let me think about that...
Looks like Trump lost control of appointments in his administration... and it is Pompeo who is intrumental in defining the US
foreign policy, not Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... The decision by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to give former Wall Street Journal editorial writer Mary Kissel a senior position at the department, despite her previous clashes with US President Donald Trump, shows that neoconservatives are moving in on the administration ..."
"... As a writer, Kissel took Trump to task on Twitter on multiple occasions, criticizing him for his " frightening ignorance " on foreign policy. During a March 2016 appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Kissel even went as far as saying on air that then-candidate Trump had neither principles nor policies. To this, Trump shot back on Twitter, calling her a " major loser ." ..."
"... The only thing that I can think of is that nobody takes Trump seriously in the White House on what he says from day to day ..."
"... Kissel's recent appointment, to no one's surprise, isn't exactly sitting well with the folks on the more conservative side of the political spectrum. In a recent opinion piece for the Washington Examiner, writer Ryan Girdusky wrote that "Kissel is so wrong so frequently that not only should she not be advising Pompeo on policy, she shouldn't be employed by a single newspaper in the country to talk about politics." ..."
"... Kissel, however, isn't the first Trump opponent to be hired by Pompeo. There's also Jim Jeffrey, who, along with several other GOP insiders, signed a letter in August 2016 which noted that then-candidate Trump "lacks the character, values and experience" to be president. Despite his past objections, Jeffrey is now serving in the Trump administration as the special representative for Syria engagement. ..."
The decision by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to give former Wall Street Journal
editorial writer Mary Kissel a senior position at the department, despite her previous clashes
with US President Donald Trump, shows that neoconservatives are moving in on the
administration, investigative reporter Dave Lindorff told Sputnik.
As a writer, Kissel took Trump to task on Twitter on multiple occasions, criticizing him
for his " frightening ignorance " on
foreign policy. During a March 2016 appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Kissel even went as
far as saying on air that then-candidate Trump had neither principles nor policies. To this,
Trump shot back on Twitter, calling her a " major loser ."
An unidentified senior State Department official told Politico that Kissel's past remarks
were more of a reflection of her "role as a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial
board."
"As she has said previously when asked similar questions, her job there was to analyze and
write about policy," the department official said. "As a member of the editorial board, Mary
strongly endorsed this administration's policies on Iran, Afghanistan, tax cuts, energy policy,
regulatory reform, judicial nominations and other issues. She is proud to serve this President
and Secretary Pompeo."
"The only thing that I can think of is that nobody takes Trump seriously in the White House
on what he says from day to day," Lindorff told Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear on
Wednesday in an attempt to explain Kissel's hiring.
"That could be one answer the other one could be that this kind of neocon person, which she
is, are basically taking over the White House. I wouldn't have called Trump a neocon when he
was running for office, but I think his policies are at this point pretty much in the neocon
playbook on foreign policy."
While it's unclear how Trump reacted to Pompeo's move, Lindorff, who also writes as a
columnist for CounterPunch, suggested that he might have let bygones be bygones after certain
apologies are exchanged.
Kissel's recent appointment, to no one's surprise, isn't exactly sitting well with the
folks on the more conservative side of the political spectrum. In a recent opinion piece for
the Washington Examiner, writer Ryan Girdusky wrote that "Kissel is so wrong so frequently that
not only should she not be advising Pompeo on policy, she shouldn't be employed by a single
newspaper in the country to talk about politics."
"It is frightening that Kissel has managed to fail forward," he added.
Kissel, however, isn't the first Trump opponent to be hired by Pompeo. There's also Jim Jeffrey, who, along with several other GOP insiders, signed a letter in
August 2016 which noted that then-candidate Trump "lacks the character, values and experience"
to be president. Despite his past objections, Jeffrey is now serving in the Trump
administration as the special representative for Syria engagement.
Saving neoliberalism in the USA requires demonizing Russia. A funny thing is that Russia is a
neoliberal country since 1991, which was economically raped in 1991-2000 by some western
countries (with the help of some Harvard Business school economists, IMF and intelligence
agencies.) So now they are suffering for the second time for their overthrow of Bolshevism and
the switch to neoliberalism (which now looks like a misguided move, judging from economic
consequences for the majority of Russian population) ;-)
The Trumpenleft (or "Sputnik Left," as it is also called by professional
anti-Putin-Nazi intelligence analysts ) is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. It is a
gang of nefarious Putin-Nazi infiltrators posing as respectable leftists in order to
disseminate Trumpian ideology and Putin-Nazi propaganda among an assortment of online leftist
magazines that hardly anyone ever actually reads. The aim of these insidious Trumpenleft
infiltrators is to sow confusion, chaos, and discord among actual, real, authentic leftists who
are going about the serious business of calling Donald Trump a fascist on the Internet
twenty-five times a day, verbally abusing Julian
Assange , occasionally pulling down oppressive statues, and sharing videos of racist idiots
acting like racist idiots in public.
... ... ...
This is the type of gobbledegook the Trumpenleft use to try to dupe real leftists into
putting down their phones for a minute and actually thinking through political issues!
Fortunately, no one is falling for it. As any bona fide leftist knows, there is no "mass
migration problem." The whole thing is simply a racist hoax concocted by Putin, Alex Jones, and
other Trumpian disinformationists. The only thing real leftists need to know about immigration
is that immigrants are good, and Trump, and walls, and borders are bad! All that other fancy
gibberish about global capitalism, Milton Friedman, labor markets, and national sovereignty is
nothing but fascist propaganda (which needs to be censored, or at least deplatformed, or
demonetized, or otherwise suppressed).
But Angela Nagle is just one example. The Trumpenleft is legion, and growing. Its membership
includes a handful of prominent (and rather less prominent) fake leftist figures: Glenn
Greenwald, who many among the "Resistance" would like to see renditioned and
indefinitely detained in some offshore Trumpenleft gulag somewhere; Matt Taibbi, who just
published
a treasonous article challenging the right of the US government to prosecute publishers as
"enemy agents" for publishing material they don't want published; Julian Assange, who is one
such publisher, and who the US has scheduled for public crucifixion just as
soon as they can get their hands on him; Aaron Maté of the Real News Network, a
notorious Trump-Russia " collusion denialist "; Caitlin Johnstone , an Australian blogger and poet who
the Red-Brown Putin-Nazi hunters at CounterPunch have become totally obsessed with;
Diana Johnstone , who they also don't like; and (full disclosure)
your humble narrator .
Now, normally, the opinions of some political journalists and rather marginal political
writers wouldn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but there's a war on, so
there's no room for neutrality. As I mentioned in my latest essay , over the
course of the next two years, the global capitalist ruling classes need to make an example of
Trump, and Assange, and anyone else who has had the gall to fuck with their global empire. Part
of how they are going to do this is to further polarize the already extremely polarized
ideological spectrum until everyone is forced onto one or the other side of a pro- or
anti-Trump equation, or a pro- or anti-populist equation or a pro- or anti-fascist
equation.
As you probably noticed, The Guardian has just launched a special six-week
"investigative series" exploring the whole " new populism " phenomenon
(which began with a lot of scary photos of Steve Bannon next to the word "populism"). We are
going to be hearing a lot about "populism" over the course of the next two years. We are going
to be hearing how "populism" is actually not that different from fascism, or at the very least
is inherently racist, and anti-Semitic, and xenophobic, and how, basically, anyone who
criticizes neoliberal elites or the corporate media is Russia-loving, pro-Trump Nazi.
"... This is probably the most worrying development of the Martial Law thing. Porky is a despicable opportunist but he seems to be a predictable and practical despicable opportunist. He will wind up the tension and provocation song and dance for his NATO/US/EU sponsors in order to start the flow of delicious $$$s. ..."
"... Turchinov though, is a true believer. Or seems to be. And there is nothing more dangerous in a tense situation that one who believes his own rhetoric. I can easily see Turchinov being one to turn the nationalist rhetoric into reality and go off on a crusade to cleanse the moskals or die trying. ..."
Agreed; although the Hal Turner site says there is a full-on naval battle in progress between
the Ukrainian Navy and the Russian Navy, there is actually nothing of the sort. There is
great excitement that it may flash into a full-blown war in Europe, but that isn't going to
happen, either. Not now, anyway. Ukraine, properly speaking, doesn't really have a Navy; they
only have one major surface combatant that is seaworthy, if I remember correctly, and a
hodgepodge of smaller gunboats – Ukraine's ability to project power at sea is basically
non-existent. Russia could squash Ukraine like a bug, both at sea and on land, and before
President Porkchop throws his invincible millions into battle, he should bear in mind that
although Ukraine is a special project for Washington and Brussels, it is not a member of
NATO. American think-tankers have publicly urged Ukraine to blow up the Crimea Bridge, so
Russia is right to guard it, and Ukraine is ignoring all norms of territorial waters in a
childish attempt to play That Never Happened, as if Crimea still belonged to Ukraine. It does
not, and there was nothing illegal about its return to Russia, which is plainly the will of
its people who were never Ukrainians.
Porky is just throwing his weight about, and while it might be considerable, it has little
significance to NATO. The US warmongers would love to get something started, but the last
thing most Americans want is a major war with a nuclear power that has already said "I'm done
fucking around."
Now that all three Ukrainian ships have been captured and that he stupidly risked his
officers' lives, Poroshenko may finally rest easy: Turchinov just announced the possibility
of imposing Martial law which would cancel the Presidential elections (they won't be until
March 2019, so it seems a little early to declare that, but who knows).
Latest in Russian press is that the Ukie commanders performed on camera for video
interrogations, according to the rules of the genre, here is the link with the
interrogations/confessions:
The first guy, with the shaved head, who claims to be just an "ordinary crew member" is
said to be from Ukrainian SBU, as he gives his evidence to the camera he keeps playing with
his fingers and thumbs, probably sending Morse code signals to NATO!
What does the bridge conversation on the Russian vessel say? I believe the video was recorded
from the Russian viewpoint, and I hear a lot of "Davaiy! Davaiy!!" which is not "Oh dear, we
should turn away". It's 'Let's do it".
Yes, it sounds like the blood was up after such a goose chase but it does look like hitting a
suspect after he as given up. They could have handled it better. Not that I have any sympathy
for the Ukies, obvs, as you can really reasonable expect them to try anything to wind up
Russia.
Порошенко
обратился с
требованием к
властям России.
"Я обращаюсь к
руководству
Российской
Федерации с
требованием
немедленно
освободить
украинских
военнослужащих,
которые в
нарушение
международного
права, грубо
были задержаны
и судьба
которых
неизвестна", --
заявил
Порошенко.
Poroshenko has appealed to the Russian authorities.
"I appeal to the leadership of the Russian Federation with the demand that Ukrainian
military personnel, who, in violation of international law, have been roughly detained and
whose fate is unknown, be immediately released", Poroshenko said.
There's that thing called "International Law" again, something that the Exceptional Nation
and its satraps love so well to bandy about -- whenever it suits them to do so. Of course,
cutting off water and power supplies to civilians is quite alright.
The elections are already in question, because martial law (it must be confirmed by the
Rada today) is to be imposed for 2 months. This is very convenient for a head of state whose
popularity is rock-bottom and whose chances of being elected for a second presidential term
are as slim as are the chances of finding a virgin in a whorehouse.
By the way, Poroshenko has demanded that the sailors be urgently transferred along with
the ships to the Ukrainian side as a first step in de-escalating the situation in the Sea of
Azov. He stressed that he was waiting for an answer to his appeal .
There is something else that should give rise to Poroshenko becoming nervous: martial
law automatically makes the Bloody Pastor and the head of the National Security and Defence
Council number 2 in the Kiev Junta. And in the case of any incapacity that Poroshenko should
suffer -- including death from an overdose -- Turchinov then becomes head of the
regime.
And Turchinov, in my opinion, is as mad as a hatter, a bent Holy Joe -- and there's
nothing worse than a bible thumping wanker such as he is.
That's a good point: Under Martial Law, Turchinov could easily put a cap in Porky and make
himself the capo di capos. "Yet Brutus says he was ambitious "
This is probably the most worrying development of the Martial Law thing. Porky is a
despicable opportunist but he seems to be a predictable and practical despicable opportunist.
He will wind up the tension and provocation song and dance for his NATO/US/EU sponsors in
order to start the flow of delicious $$$s. He does this with the knowledge that unless
Russian servicemen are killed or other obvious red lines are crossed, engaging Ukraine in
open war is of no benefit to Russia and it will not happen. Sure Russia will slap them around
a little (ex these boats), but ultimately nothing of serious significance will take place.
Porky will huff and puff and kneel for the nationalists all day as long as there is benefit
to it and it keeps him in the feeding trough if you will, but he will not intentionally
commit to a serious course of action that will ruin him and his largesse.
Turchinov though, is a true believer. Or seems to be. And there is nothing more
dangerous in a tense situation that one who believes his own rhetoric. I can easily see
Turchinov being one to turn the nationalist rhetoric into reality and go off on a crusade to
cleanse the moskals or die trying.
He is definitely the one to watch during the Martial Law saga.
"... The Russian Navy detained the Ukrainian ships. Of course, the Western presstitutes, most of whom are CIA assets, will blame "Russian aggression." Washington and its presstitutes are doing everything they can to make impossible Trump's expressed goal of normal relations with Russia. NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu quickly aligned NATO with Ukraine: "NATO fully supports Ukraine's sovereignty and its territorial integrity, including its navigation rights in its territorial waters." ..."
"... The Russian government's response to Ukraine's provocation and violation of law was to call an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, as if anything would come of this. Washington pays such a large percentage of the UN budget, that few countries will side against Washington. As President Trump's crazed UN ambassador Nikki Haley said, "we take names." ..."
"... From all evidence, the Russian government still, despite all indications to the contrary, believes that presenting a non-threatening posture to the West, which appeals to law and not to arms, is effective in discrediting Western charges of aggression against Russia. If only it were true, but no sooner than a high Russian official announced that, despite the overwhelming elections for independence from Kiev in the breakway Russian provinces of Ukraine, Russia would not recognize the independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk than "the Ukrainian army opened massive artillery fire on Sunday, shelling residential areas of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic." https://sputniknews.com/europe/201811261070125114-ukraine-kerch-strait-crisis-martial-law-poroshenko/ ..."
Ukrainian military ships have violated Russian restrictions in the Sea of Azov and Articles
19 and 21 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Ukrainian Navy crossed the Russian
sea border and entered a closed area of Russian territorial waters. Clearly, Washington was
behind this as Ukraine would not undertake such a provocation on its own. Here is an accurate
explanation of the event: https://www.rt.com/news/444857-russia-ukraine-kerch-strait-standoff/
The US military/security complex prefers the risk of nuclear war to any diminution of its
$1,000 billion annual budget, a completely unnecessary sum that is destined to grow as the
presstitutes, in line with the military/security complex, continue to demonize both Russia and
Putin and to never question the obvious orchestrations that are used to portray Russia as a
threat.
The Russian government's response to Ukraine's provocation and violation of law was to call
an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, as if anything would come of this. Washington
pays such a large percentage of the UN budget, that few countries will side against Washington.
As President Trump's crazed UN ambassador Nikki Haley said, "we take names."
From all evidence, the Russian government still, despite all indications to the contrary,
believes that presenting a non-threatening posture to the West, which appeals to law and not to
arms, is effective in discrediting Western charges of aggression against Russia. If only it
were true, but no sooner than a high Russian official announced that, despite the overwhelming
elections for independence from Kiev in the breakway Russian provinces of Ukraine, Russia would
not recognize the independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk than "the Ukrainian army opened
massive artillery fire on Sunday, shelling residential areas of the self-proclaimed Donetsk
People's Republic."
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201811261070125114-ukraine-kerch-strait-crisis-martial-law-poroshenko/
By trusting that there is a rule of law in the West, the Russian government is digging
Russia's grave while it allows Washington's Ukrainian Nazis to murder Russian people. The
Russian government is discrediting itself by trusting US vassals, such as Germany, to enforce
the Minsk agreement and, despite all evidence to the contrary, believing that there is a rule
of law in the West. Russia continues, year after year, to appeal to this non-existent entity
called the Western Rule of Law.
This policy reassures the Zionist Neoconservatives who rule Washington's foreign policy that
Russia is incapable of defending its interests.
ORDER IT NOW Russia Is Disadvantaged by Her Belief that the West Is Governed by Law, by Paul
Craig Roberts - The Unz Review
This makes Russia an easy mark for Washington to destabilize. We see it already in Putin's
falling approval ratings in Russia. The Russian government permits US-financed Russian
newspapers and NGO organizations to beat up the Russian government on a daily basis. Decades of
American propaganda have convinced many in the world that Washington's friendship is the key to
success. The Russian Atlanticist Integrationists believe that Putin stands in the way of this
friendship.
China is also an easy mark. The Chinese government permits Chinese students to study in the
US from whence they return brainwashed by US propaganda and become Washington's Fifth Column in
China.
It sometimes seems that Russia and China are more focused on gaining wealth than they are on
national survival. It is extraordinary that these two governments are still constrained in
their independence and remain dependent on the US dollar and Western financial systems for
clearances of their international trade.
As Washington controls the explanations, surviving Washington's hegemony is proving to be a
challenge for both countries.
"... Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. ..."
"... Indeed, a national security policy that sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, thinkable once again. ..."
"... George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address , counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ..."
"... Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country. ..."
"... Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime. ..."
"... Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick it in their face). ..."
"... America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics. ..."
President Donald Trump's
recent statement on the Jamal Khashoggi killing by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince might well be considered a metaphor for his foreign
policy. Several commentators have suggested that the text appears to be something that Trump wrote himself without any adult supervision,
similar to the poorly expressed random arguments presented in his tweeting only longer. That might be the case, but it would not
be wise to dismiss the document as merely frivolous or misguided as it does in reality express the kind of thinking that has produced
a foreign policy that seems to drift randomly to no real end, a kind of leaderless creative destruction of the United States as a
world power.
Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of Britain in the mid nineteenth century, famously said that "Nations have no permanent friends
or allies, they only have permanent interests."The United States currently has neither real friends nor any clearly defined interests.
It is, however, infested with parasites that have convinced an at-drift America that their causes are identical to the interests
of the United States. Leading the charge to reduce the U.S. to "bitch" status, as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
has artfully put it , are Israel and Saudi
Arabia, but there are many other countries, alliances and advocacy groups that have learned how to subvert and direct the "leader
of the free world."
Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the
three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. It is difficult to find a part of the world where an actual
American interest is being served by Washington's foreign and global security policies. Indeed, a national security policy that
sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet
Union in 1991, thinkable once again. The fact that no one is the media or in political circles is even talking about that terrible
danger suggests that war has again become mainstreamed, tacitly benefiting from bipartisan acceptance of it as a viable foreign policy
tool by the media, in the U.S. Congress and also in the White House.
The part of the world where American meddling coupled with ignorance has produced the worst result is inevitably the Middle East...
... ... ...
All of the White House's actions have one thing in common and that is that they do not benefit Americans in any way unless one
works for a weapons manufacturer, and that is not even taking into consideration the dead soldiers and civilians and the massive
debt that has been incurred to intervene all over the world. One might also add that most of America's interventions are built on
deliberate lies by the government and its associated media, intended to increase tension and create a casus belli where
none exists.
So what is to be done as it often seems that the best thing Trump has going for him is that he is not Hillary Clinton? First of
all, a comprehensive rethink of what the real interests of the United States are in the world arena is past due. America is less
safe now than it was in 2001 as it continues to make enemies with its blundering everywhere it goes. There are now
four times as many designated terrorists as there were in 2001, active in 70 countries. One would quite plausibly soon arrive
at George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address
, counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington
might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment
of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary
common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former
into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."
George Washington or any of the other Founders would be appalled to see an America with 800 military bases overseas, allegedly
for self-defense. The transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the military industrial complex and related entities like Wall Street
has been catastrophic. The United States does not need to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are armed to the teeth
and well able to defend themselves. Nor does it have to be in Syria and Afghanistan. And
If the United States were to withdraw its military from the Middle East and the rest of Asia tomorrow, it would be to nearly everyone's
benefit. If the armed forces were to be subsequently reduced to a level sufficient to defend the United States it would put money
back in the pockets of Americans and end the continuous fearmongering through surfacing of "threats" by career militarists justifying
the bloated budgets.
... ... ...
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests [email protected]
.
but even small steps in the right direction could initiate a gradual process of turning the United States into a more normal
country in its relationships with the rest of the world rather than a universal predator and bully.
Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute
the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country.
To expect mutations -- no matter how slow or fast in a
trait that appears deeply embedded in our DNA is to be naive. Add to that the intractable stranglehold Zionists and organized
world Jewry has on our nuts and decision making. A more congruent convergence of histories and DNAs would be hard to come by among
other nations. Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone
of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime.
Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give
him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick
it in their face).
Hey, how about a Rand Paul-Tulsi Gabbard fusion ticket in 2024, not a bad idea, IMHO.
Going back to the Administration you can see the slimy Zionist hands of Steven Miller on all of those foreign policy statements.
Trump is allowing this because he has to protect his flanks from Zionists, Christian or otherwise. He might be just giving Miller
just enough rope to jettison him (wishful thinking on my part). Or he doesn't care or is unaware of the texts, a possibility.
1. Because that defies human nature. See all of history if you disagree.
2. America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples
who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics.
The beginning of USA foreign policy for me is the 1820 or 1830 Monroe Declaration: south America is our backyard, keep out.
Few people know that at the time European countries considered war on the USA because of this beginning of world domination.
When I told this to a USA correspondent the reply was 'but this declaration still is taught here in glowing terms'.
What we saw then was the case until Obama, USA foreign policy was for internal political reasons.
As Hollings stated in 2004 'Bush promising AIPAC the war on Iraq, that is politics'.
No empire ever, as far as I know, ever was in the comfortable position to be able to let foreign policy to be decided (almost)
completely by internal politics.
This changed during the Obama reign, the two war standard had to be lowered to one and a half.
All of a sudden the USA had to develop a foreign policy, a policy that had to take into consideration the world outside the USA.
Not the whole USA understands this, the die hards of Deep State in the lead.
What a half war accomplishes we see, my opinion, in Syria, a half war does not bring victory on an enemy who wages a whole
war.
Assad is still there, Russia has airforce and naval bases in Syria.
Normally, as any history book explains, foreign policy of a country is decided on in secret by a few people.
British preparations for both WWI and WWII included detailed technical talks with both the USA and France, not even all cabinet
members knew about it.
One of Trump's difficulties is that Deep State does not at all has the intention of letting the president decide on foreign policy,
at the time of FDR he did what he liked, though, if one reads for example Baruch's memoirs, in close cooperation with the Deep
State that then existed.
The question 'why do we not leave the rest of the world alone', hardly ever asked.
The USA is nearly autarcic, foreign trade, from memory, some five percent of national income, a very luxurious position.
But of course, leaving the rest of the world alone, huge internal consequences, as Hinckley explains with an example, politically
impossible to stop the development of a bomber judged to be superfluous.
Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
Good luck. A fight over resources with the biggest consumer of resources, the People That Kill People and all their little buddies
in the Alphabet Soup of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Depravity..
That could get a fella hurt. Ask Jack and Bob Kennedy.
"The bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Russia is now worse than it was towards the end of the Cold War". Classic American
cold warrior mentality. The present-day Russian Federation is assimilated to the former Soviet Union.
Tragically for America, and the West in general, President Trump is unrecognizable from
candidate Trump :
'This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we the people reclaim control over
our government. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals,
massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry Their financial resources are virtually
unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their
immorality is absolutely unlimited.'
Vesti News
Published on 26 Nov 2018
Subscribe to Vesti News
On Monday, the Russian General Prosecutor's Office announced the initiation of a new criminal case against William Browder,
an international schemer and fraudster. Now Browder is suspected of organizing and leading a criminal community in Russia.
For many years, Browder has been making frantic efforts to avoid going to Russian prison.
Well, lucky for him Interpol can't come after him, now that he almost singlehandedly
prevented a Russian from becoming Director. He's only Assistant Director, so he must be
powerless.
There; you see? The GRU could obviously learn a few lessons from Browder. If you want to rub
someone out, don't use a distinctive nerve agent that everyone will know came from Russia,
you numbskulls. Try to make it something undetectable, but if you can't manage that, at least
make it something so general it might have come from anywhere. Then immediately announce that
Browder did it.
Jun 6, 2017 50 Years After Launching June 1967 War, Israel Continues World's Longest Military
Occupation
In the final installment of our three-part special on the 50th anniversary of the June
1967 war, author and scholar Norman Finkelstein discusses why the U.S.-backed "peace process"
was never meant to end the Israeli occupation, and how, despite the ongoing brutality, mass
Palestinian civil resistance could still bring it to an end.
"... The proposal is precisely analogous to South Africa not only because of the displacement of the original population into separated enclosures, but because it leaves the bulk of the land in the hands of a colonial population, whose identity and exclusivity is specifically enshrined in law by ethnicity. Israel's adoption this year of a new nation state law putting the state on an officially racist basis only confirmed the reality encapsulated in a raft of hundreds of other laws and regulations. The harsh discriminatory regime faced by non-Jews in Israel has been exhaustively documented , and it is not my purpose to repeat it here. I recommend this lecture by Ben White: ..."
"... A major difference between South Africa's apartheid and Israel's is that the political will was there in the sixties to oppose this ignominy. The Labour Party and Liberal Party and some Conservatives fought against it in the days before Israel (with its various friends' groups) owned all the political parties and, shamefully, nobody has the balls to stand against this evil regime ..."
"... The people instrumental in demonising apartheid and organising campaigns against South Africa were often the same people who were devoted to the State of Israel. When you look at the people behind the campaigns you see which ideological positions they adhered to, so it is worth looking up key individuals and their doctrinal adherences ..."
The original apartheid state of South Africa created "homelands", known colloquially as "bantustans", and proposed that, as the
apotheosis of apartheid, these "homelands" would become independent states and house the majority black population of the country
in fenced-off areas which had been too arid, rocky or commercial mineral free to attract significant white settlement over three
centuries of theft. South Africa actually did recognise some of these as Independent states, while the rest were supposed to be on
a course to recognition.
The maps really do bring out the startling similarity between these two attempts to formalise the dispossession of the original
people. Thankfully, even though the "Homelands solution" had its supporters including Thatcher, it never achieved support beyond
what was then an extreme right wing view, and none of the "independent states" ever achieved international recognition.
I worked in the FCO as the South Africa (Political) desk officer from 1984-6, and seeing off right wing Tory lobbying to adopt
the Homelands policy was a major problem. It is simply symptomatic of the extraordinary right wing shift in western politics over
the intervening three decades, that a "Bantustan" solution for Palestine, laughably called a "two state solution", is now the accepted
wisdom of the political and media class.
The proposal is precisely analogous to South Africa not only because of the displacement of the original population into separated
enclosures, but because it leaves the bulk of the land in the hands of a colonial population, whose identity and exclusivity is specifically
enshrined in law by ethnicity. Israel's adoption this year of a new nation state law putting the state on an
officially racist
basis only confirmed the reality encapsulated in a raft of hundreds of other laws and regulations. The harsh discriminatory regime
faced by non-Jews in Israel has been exhaustively
documented , and it is not my purpose to repeat it here. I recommend this lecture by Ben White:
Many of the practices Ben describes have strong echoes of the apartheid regime, as do the disregard for Black/Palestinian life,
the regular use of disproportionate lethal force against protestors, the mass arrests and detentions, the impunity for both law enforcers
and "master race" civilians who attack blacks/Palestinians. These features are highly analogous.
But what I want to address here is the striking similarity between the arguments used by supporters of apartheid, with which I
dealt every day at the FCO, and the arguments used today by supporters of Israel. They came by post thirty years ago not internet,
and we did not use the word meme, but the key arguments are exactly the same.
Imagine if the UK had in its statutes, and the USA had in its constitution measures to ensure only white people had the right
to immigration [one of Israel's basic laws is only Jews have the right to immigration into Israel]. Continuing the analogy with Israel's
recently passed 'Nation-State' [basic law].
1. "The states of the UK and the US are the nation-states of the 'white people".
2. "The actualization of the right of national self- determination in the states of the UK/USA is unique to white people"
3. "The UK/USA will labour to ensure the safety of sons of white people".
4. "The UK/USA will act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious legacy of white people among the Diaspora".
5. "The UK/USA views 'white's only' settlement as joint national values and will labour to encourage and promote its establishment
and development".
Now let us look at one of the IHRA examples which the Labour Party have incorporated into the Labour Party rule book:
"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination – e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist
endeavour".
Who could deny that examples 1 to 5 above if incorporated into UK and US law would prove 100% that the UK and US were inherently
racist and that their 'existence were racist endeavours' and that anyone in the UK/US [including Jeremy Corbyn] who disapproved of
1 to 5 above, and said so, would fall foul of the IHRA definition, be accused of being Anti Semitic and drummed out of associations
like the Labour Party and possibly ostracised from society for life. Disgraceful.
Wilhelm Marr seems to have been strongly anti-J_ish and, in 1879, "he founded the League of Antisemites (Antisemiten-Liga), the
first German organization committed specifically to combating the alleged threat to Germany posed by the J_s and advocating their
forced removal from the country".
I find it bizarre that a term coined by a vehemently anti-J_ish person is used by the IHRA in preference to the more accurate
term anti-J_ism.
Meanwhile: The Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas authorities in Gaza routinely arrest and torture
peaceful critics and opponents, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/23/palestine-authorities-crush-dissent
Explains a lot
I think you'll find that most "bantustans" were led by corrupt officials who mistreated their "citizens". You don't imagine that
the Apartheid colonisers would want a genuine, free and united populace in their client statelets, do you? What goes for South Africa,
applies just as neatly to Israel.
As a South African there are lots of parallels with Israel/Palestine and a few differences. The differences are never in Israel's
favour. The one thing that I always convinced myself of was that Palestinians were not controlled like our Bantustan leaders were
– like Buthelezi managing the Zulus into good little darkies.
But now I am not so sure when I see the deliberate shut down of electricity.
Those in Israel will tell you that it is a better life than a Black South African experienced living in the madam or master's house.
There are Palestinian Doctors working in real jobs in real hospitals alongside real jews. That never happened in South Africa.
Those in Gaza will tell you that it is a worse life than living in a Homeland. That I can believe, we could at least grow food, tend
animals, create a community.
A major difference between South Africa's apartheid and Israel's is that the political will was there in the sixties to oppose
this ignominy. The Labour Party and Liberal Party and some Conservatives fought against it in the days before Israel (with its various
friends' groups) owned all the political parties and, shamefully, nobody has the balls to stand against this evil regime . If
they do they get shadow-banned or dragged through the courts/
The people instrumental in demonising apartheid and organising campaigns against South Africa were often the same people who
were devoted to the State of Israel. When you look at the people behind the campaigns you see which ideological positions they adhered
to, so it is worth looking up key individuals and their doctrinal adherences
Many whites have in fact been murdered since blacks took over South Africa. The facts are clear. So their fears were not only
a fantasy but realistic. This is the weakness of your argument, that you simply reject the fears of whites, which have come to fruition.
I suspect you simply have an animus towards white South Africans, it is a result of your moral self-righteousness. I also noticed
that you changed topic after mentioning that many whites genuinely believed that they would be murdered by blacks.
We suffered an armed robbery, my mother, who had just come out of intensive care, was beaten. She died less than 1 year later,
most probably from trauma. Many whites are not as lucky to have survived even the robbery. We have since emigrated. My family has
been living in SA for 250 years. More than 50% of blacks are immigrants of the last 50 years. Yet you insinuate that our right to
live in the land is less than theirs.
The number of whites, especially farmers, who have since been murdered brutally, create facts on the ground which you cannot gloss
over or dismiss if you were honest. It is telling that you changed topics just after mentioning the fears of whites. Because you
will never let a fact get in the way of your moral self.righteousness.
I do understand it. Once the Israeli's had established themselves, as immigrants have in UK, you almost can't turn the clock back
without inflicting the same policies/suffering in reverse. The Palestinians have de facto recognised this, hence their support for
a two state solution. I.e. two viable independent nations. Except, in practice, its not on offer as the Likud want to drive them
all into the sea or, until they expand further, Jordan.
Now that two states is unviable, the one multi-national state solution takes centre stage, but the Likud want a one-state without
the Palestinians, hence the new apartheid laws, in an attempt to keep the multi-national one-state, Jewish.
But it wont work, once the Palestinians embrace the one-state solution, and in effect declare themselves Israeli's, as the world,
even US, will support the need for all Israeli's to have equal rights, and Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital
of Israel (and de facto Palestine) brings that day closer.
To illustrate the point, the Zionists are advancing too far, like Hitler towards Stalingrad, to be cut off in the rear, resulting
in a pyrrhic victory. Instead of settling for a Jewish state, mostly occupied by Jews, alongside a Palestinian state, they are forcing
the creation of a multi-national one state, only half occupied by Jews, hence the need for new apartheid rules, to keep the multi-national
state, Jewish.
From an Israeli perspective, the "problem" is more or less solved. They'd love to fully take over Gaza and the West Bank, of course,
build a few hotels etc., but these are more or less clean-up operations. Something like 90% of the Palestinian population has been
expelled.
The whole area is a massive crime scene. I can't even fathom the idea of finding any solution there. It'd be like trying to find
the solution to the Big Bang. I can't see past making them stop and then setting up some sort of Nuremberg type system to deal with
the criminals.
There's nothing more depressing than this subject for me.
"I can't even fathom the idea of finding any solution there."
One man, One vote.
The demographics will then sort themselves out very quickly as those Israelis with dual-citizenship decamp and move to their "second"
country.
I would think that within a decade – maybe two – the demographics would be 70/30 or even more in favour of the Arab-speaking population,
and nobody will be killed and nobody will be dispossessed. And at that point "Israel" will change its name to "Palestine" and nobody
will make the slightest fuss about it.
I wouldn't use that phrase, no.
But it is as inevitable as that.
When the Zionist grip starts to loosen then a significant number of those Zionists are going to bolt – and that will accelerate
the process until it become a steamroller.
That's what nobody pays any attention to: the Palestinians won't go away because they have nowhere to go.
But there are enough Zionists who can – and will – and that will end up being the decisive factor.
They're not bolting for the exits yet because they are convinced that they are winning.
But they will waver, and it won't take many to break before the whole thing collapses.
Yeah, Right, there's no sign of wavering though. They're intensifying and extending their grip. The Golan Heights aren't even
an issue today, that's how bad it's gotten. Poverty levels in Gaza thanks to sanctions and blockade have never been so bad as they
are right now.
Any day now we are expecting another major attack on Gaza along the lines of Caste Lead. They will hit schools and hospitals as
usual and thousands of unarmed civilians will die.
Not on the surface, no. The Israelis have excellent propaganda. Negative points are quickly brushed under the carpet. But Israel
is being hollowed out from the inside. Everybody has their second passport, ready to run. You will remember there was a big panic
in 2006 during Olmert's war in Lebanon. Hizbullah missiles were falling on Israel, and there were lengthy queues outside foreign
embassies for Israelis desperate to renew their second passports.
Nobody wants to fight any more. I mean, would you want to spend your life in the army reserve, obliged to be ready to go to war
whenever Netanyahu happens to decide on another invasion of Gaza? No, you would say sod it, I'm off to the States for a more peaceful
'normal' life. The Israeli army is just a poor militia now (see Pat Lang, passim). Even the Gazans stopped them cold in 2014. That
said, the airforce is very good, but it's the only arm that works now. And then Hizbullah have their stash of missiles that can now
reach anywhere in Israel, and Israel can do nothing about it (if they could, they would).
"Yeah, Right, there's no sign of wavering though."
Agreed, there is no *sign* of wavering.
Indeed, the degree of bombast coming out of the Israeli establishment is now deafening.
"The Golan Heights aren't even an issue today, that's how bad it's gotten."
Oh, I think that once the Syrian government wipes out the last of the jihadists and then forces the US to withdraw from Syrian
territory then you will find the Golan Heights will become very much a hot potato.
After all, it will then be the last piece of Syrian territory that is not under the control of the Syrians, and they'll be in
no mood to be "intimidated" by the Israelis.
The Israelis will keep beating up on the Gaza Strip? Sure, they will.
And that will lull the Likud into thinking that the IDF is still a mighty fighting force, sure, it will.
But the strategic situation for Israeli is getting worse and worse, to the point where the Israelis dare not attack Lebanon for
fear that the Syrians will take the opportunity to seize the Golan Heights, and the Israelis dare not launch an attack into Syria
lest Hezbollah launch a counter-attack on the flank of that expeditionary force.
And either way there is this slight problem: the IDF is now a bunch of fluffy-girls-blouses, and as such is likely to get its
arse kicked in a fight with a real army.
laguerre has it correct below: the IDF has been hollowed out, as has Israeli society as a whole. They are riding for a fall, and
when they do they will come down to earth with a thud.
And nobody will be more surprised than them, which is when they will stampede for the door.
Germany played an important role in unleashing 2014 Maydan events, although at the end it was
overtaken by the USA... Germany was also the major pusher for the association agreement between
Ukraine and EU. Pro-Atlantism Merkel did a lot to damage German business interests in Russia,
although Russian so far resisted abrupt moves (I think only German luxury cars and agricultural
products are currently sanctioned by Russia).
Looks like Jonas J. Driedger expresses standard NATO propagandists position on t he subject
which is interesting in view of existence of UK financed "Integrity initiative" (documents about which were recently leaked by
Anonymous ) and, especially, late
Dr. Udo Ulfkotte revelations
... in 2014, Russia started to build a bridge over the
Kerch Strait to connect the Peninsula to the Russian mainland, as attempts to build a land
connection by conquering Ukraine's Sea of Azov coastline had previously failed. To try and stop
the trans-Kerch bridge and grant access for its vessels through the straits, Ukraine
sued Russia by invoking the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The danger of military escalation between Russia and Ukraine, with all of its unforeseeable
consequences, is real and rising.
Russia is largely unaware of this, as it has moved its attention away from Ukraine and
towards operations in Syria, countering U.S. efforts to modernize its nuclear arsenal, and
improving Russian gas supply capabilities to the European Union and
Germany .
At the same time, mainly for domestic purposes, Russian state-controlled media continues to
trash the Ukrainian government while celebrating the finalization of the Kerch bridge and
supposed economic miracles in Crimea.
Such triumphalism fans the flames of revanchism in Ukraine. The list of grievances in
Ukraine is as long as it is understandable. Crimea remains occupied, and the West has quietly
acquiesced to this fact by making sure that existing sanctions are primarily tied to advances
in the Minsk process over Donbass, not Crimea. Ironically, no such advances in the Minsk
framework taken place, which suits Russian interests, but remains a thorn in Ukraine's side,
where the Minsk process is seen as illegitimate to begin with.
At the same time, Russian president Vladimir Putin has permitted the stationing of bombers
and Iskander missiles in Crimea, both of which are dual-capable missile delivery systems. Since
2014, Russian support for the Putin regime is less dependent on the country's economic
well-being, and more so on the continued performance of Russia as a great power. While the
effect is declining, the annexation of Crimea has long boosted Putin's popularity. Therefore,
Russia is unlikely to back down in a crisis with Ukraine.
Ukraine, simultaneously, has significantly beefed up its military forces and improved its
on-the-ground-control. The anti-tank Javelin launchers provided by the United States are only a
small part of these efforts. A replication of the confused and feeble Ukrainian response in
2014 is unlikely. The Ukrainian military is now even regarded by some in Kyiv as a possible
tool to establish some new facts on the ground.
However, Ukrainian domestic politics worsen the situation. The country will hold
presidential elections in March 2019. In the most recent polls, incumbent president Petro
Poroshenko trails his main competitor Yulia Tymoshenko, who has made Donbass, Crimea, and
Russia core topics in her attacks on Poroshenko.
Tymoshenko's strategy, the stalling Minsk process, Ukraine's ongoing economic woes, rampant
corruption, and allegations of Poroshenko being involved in shady business deals increasingly
narrow down the incumbent's options for holding on to power. His most promising option is to
present himself as a successful, or at least assertive, war president. Poroshenko's recent move
to impose martial law corroborates this view. Considering the traditionally cut-throat nature
of Ukraine's elite struggles and Yulia Tymoshenko's questionable record, there is little reason
to be optimistic.
The West, at the same time, looks inward and has shown little interest in effectively
ameliorating the danger of military escalation between Ukraine and Russia. This is likely to
continue, due to the ongoing twists and turns surrounding Trump and the continuing Brexit
process in Europe. Incidentally, the United Kingdom is likely to formally leave the European
Union two days before the Ukrainian presidential election.
War over Ukraine might not be very likely, but the danger is real.
Jonas J. Driedger is a German policy analyst at the European University Institute in
Florence, Italy. He is also currently a visiting scholar at the Higher School of Economics in
Moscow and partakes in the Alfa Fellowship Program. He specializes in foreign and security
policy with a focus on Germany, the European Union and Russia. His analyses were published in
The National Interest, Politico Europe, per Concordiam, EUObserver, and EurActiv. The views
expressed in this article are solely his own.
Mr.Parashenko has rating 0% in his land because Ukrainian economy is ruined by him.
And president elections are coming. He just needs marital law to prevent president
elections and stay on Ukrainian throne. Otherwise he has full chance to be imprisoned for
corruption. That's why yesterday he intervened Russian territorial waters. Expectedly
Russia prevented intervention and arrested the boats. And today Parashenko already
implemented marital law! Voi la! :-)
Hello Troll!
How's it going, how much money do you get for your comments in the National
interest???
I'm kidding, I'm not interested in your answers. DDD
As certified western toadies the Ukies will howl about anything. The Russians
therefore should deliver then a serious whacking. The west can't do a thing having shot
it wad long ago.
The only war the US will fight with Iran is a nuclear war. A population of 80 million
bordering Pakistan with 197 million is a big effort and the US has been a complete flop with
even 35 million Afghans and $2 Trillion spent. Israel can play the "Polish Card" the one FDR
used to blackmail Chamberlain into declaring war in 1939 – and boy did he apply pressure
! – but it won't help Israel survive and more than Poland did.
Israel cannot "solve the Palestinian problem" any more than the "Jewish problem" was solved
when Tsarist Russia let them emigrate to USA and USA stopped them emigrating from Nazi Germany
under Johnson-Reed Act 1924 as in case of SS St Louis in 1939 sent back to Germany.
Israel will never resolve the problem they perceive. The actions of their ally and friend
Mohammed bin Salman will make it nigh on impossible now the crudity of the gangsters running
alongside Israel are plain to see and Trump had better read up on Uncle Remus and the Tar
Baby
A thermonuclear attack on Iran by the USA would probably trigger a response by Russia. The
Russian defence doctrine clearly states that thermonuclear weapons will be used in the event
of an attack on Russia or its allies.
How close an ally Iran is in that context may be debatable; but Russia could not afford to
stand by while Iran was destroyed.
Marxism is a brilliant sui generis philosophy of history. The attending political
position was a heartfelt reaction to the immiseration of the working classes of Europe.
There were many similar ideologies to Marxism in political viewpoint, but Marxism is
outstandingly intellectually interesting.
Marx is not differentiated from other (Gentile) socialists by his politics but by his
genius. I doubt his part Jewishness had much to do with that.
Jews have made up a huge proportion of decent economists from all economic
perspectives.
Meanwhile, Ayn Rand was an highly eccentric writer of romantic fiction that lucidly
captured the snivelling, resentment fueled scumbags who make up the denizens of the
swamp.
Pychoanalysis – (((Freud)
Freud's psychoanalysis might be flawed but his work constitutes a truly great body of
literature and the invention of a new and important subject. He is one of the greatest
thinkers of all time.
USSR – (((Lenin))), (((Trotsky)
Lenin wasn't Jewish. Trotsky was. Lenin was in charge, while Trotsky ended up murdered
while in ignominious exile.
SJW/open society/antifa movements – (((Soros))) and other forture 400
(((billionaires)))
I'm not sure how you think antifa and billionaires are best buddies but Jews are obviously
a minority among billionaires.
Soros is deranged. There are plenty of bad people in every group. There are more maniac
progressive types among Jews. The explanations are mundane.
Big tech censorship – (((ADL))), (((SPLC))), (((Zuckerberg))), (((Brin)))
Again, Jews are a small minority of those enacting big tech censorship. Indeed, America
remains one of human history's least censored societies. That doesn't make it good but you
need get some perspective before you go all crazy.
Hollywood and other pop culture entertainment – easily all senior positions at the
very least 50% jewish
Nonsense. And a lot of that stuff is pretty good.
The jew really is to blame, which is also why they are so hell bent on censoring and
jailing people for stating these blatant truths.
Lenin wasn't Jewish. Trotsky was. Lenin was in charge, while Trotsky ended up murdered
while in ignominious exile.
apparently Lenin was part jewish and had disdain for white people, ethnic Russians
Trotsky was the racist he accused others of being – he wanted to fill Russia with
what he called "white n1ggers" presumably to ruled by jews like himself – what right a
5% has to rule the rest of the country? It would be like Chinese ruling the U.S.
Again, Jews are a small minority of those enacting big tech censorship.
really? (((Facebook))), (((Google))), and (((SPLC))) and (((ADL))) are the so called
"safety advisors" so no leftist or jew should ever have to stumble upon the truth on those
sites
also, why do you thnk BitChute lost access to PayPal and Stripe? why do think Paul Nehlen
suddenly had trouble with his upstream suppliers for the business he manages? its because
jews behind the scenes collude against and punish any competitiors or anyone speaking out
about jews – this is what they do
Indeed, America remains one of human history's least censored societies.
no thanks to the jews, who have pulled this "hate speech" crap already in Canada, UK,
Australia, and Europe. They are the reason those countries don't have Free Speech and they're
coming for Free Speech here in the U.S. too – because (((their))) feelings are more
important than your rights
The overwhelming majority of Jews are not Semites (peoples from the Middle East). Most Jews'
points of origin are in Europe.
My family (mother's side) German Jews – not a Semite in the bunch. Mostly blond
haired & blue eyes.
There is real resistance to those, who attempt to clarify this vital point. Ron Unz, this
is your website, and these are some of your topics. Why fear to tread? Why fear the truth?
You've come so far. Come all the way into the light.
Most Jews come from – – – Read Arthur Koestler's "The Thirteenth
Tribe" as a start for your education and a cure for your being brainwashed.
Have received some threatening emails, and despite all the political views this Anarchist
has, the threats have ALL been in response to my analysis of just who are, and are not
Semites. Unz, and Commentators, I need no help here. I fear not, and cannot live forever.
Orwell's 1984 , explains in detail the use of false language and false History as
the KEY tools in repressing Humanity, and Humanity's Liberty.
The misidentification of just who Semites are is a powerful weapon in the hands of the
Zionist Land Thieves and their American, British, & French puppets. The Jewish claim
to Semitism goes in tandem with their insistence on their right to exterminate
Palestinians and occupy their land, and later, the Zionist Oligarchs will continue to
occupy all the Middle East "eretz Israel," and concurrently, they will occupy and control
(with the weapons of financial/banking and physical terror), the peoples of this planet.
It is no wonder Gilad Atzmon has it all wrong. Look for no help here.
Jews have not been the only recipients of the Brutality that humans often inflict on one
another. And Jews have not been specially singled out, over Serbians, Russians, Chinese,
Armenians, Native Americans, Iraqis, Syrians, Vietnamese, Indonesians (1965), Yemenis,
Libyans, Afghanis, Africans (slavery and neo colonizing of their nations), and dozens
more.
Jews belong (yes, they, with all the rest of Earth's people, belong). Jews belong in
America, and Europe, where they may reside in happiness and freedom with all the other
peoples, and, if they wish, they may visit their newly Freed and Happy Palestinian friends,
(and host them in their European and American homes) – as well.
We American Patriots , we will host all, in our Restored American Republic.
And America's finest statesman, Dr. Ron Paul , will become our First Constitutional
President – since John F. Kennedy.
The Living Dream, and do not Fear.
Durruti for the Anarchist Collective
West Bank Settler and American Patriot, by Gilad
Atzmon - The Unz Review
@wayfarer
The USA is full of Jewish billionaires. Why on earth does Israel need any blood money from
the hard-pressed taxpayers when they could supply their home away from home with all the
extra money it needs, if indeed it needs any at all? If you are wondering about one of the
main causes of US anti-Semitism, look no further than the billions our AIPAC-controlled
traitorous Congress gives to that apartheid state every year.
West Bank Settler and American Patriot, by Gilad Atzmon - The Unz Review
What a pleasure to find Gilad Atzmon here at UNZ. And as usual, Mr. Atzmon delivers fresh
insights and bold perspectives.
I am grateful that Gilad is examining as well as talking to hyper-Zionists living in
Pennsylvania. This is revealing. I appreciate Yonatan Stern's willingness to address Atzmon's
questions.
I was similarly impressed–unexpectedly so–when I met the late Rabbi Meir
Kahane, who I briefly interviewed for a televised TV debate I produced ('Why Terrorism?') in
1986. Former US Congressman, Pete McCloskey (R-CA), took the opposing side in this exchange
concerning the future of Palestine/Israel as well as US policies there. In my opinion, Kahane
won the debate (though not on its merits).
Rabbi Kahane was an unabashed separatist (like most devout Jews) and he famously declared
(somewhat prematurely) that Israel's native gentiles ('Palestinians') had no future in a
Jewish State.
Kahane believed that all these resentful, recalcitrant Arabs should be kicked out of
Israel. He was unabashedly pro-separation. From a Zionist point of view, Kahane offered a
violent though practical long-term solution. Multiculturalism is inherently problematic and
destabilizing. It is also incompatible with Jewish nationalism. But Kahane made Jewish
liberals blush. As a result, he was declared a 'racist' by establishment Jews; even though
Judaism is, at its core, race-driven.
Please keep in mind that during this era (Carter through Clinton) the endless Mideast
'peace process' was still underway with all the hype, fanfare, and false hopes.
The 'peace process' ended up being a road to nowhere–full of highfalutin awards,
accords, meetings, 'confidence-building measures' and an endless array of Jewish advisors,
pro-Israel committees, donors and 'experts'. Kahane knew that it was doomed from the
start.
Nevertheless, Jews from nearly every 'mainstream' political faction world-wide derided
Kahane's straightforward and 'racist' solutions, even though his prophetic advice now mirrors
today's Israeli policies. Meir Kahane was simply ahead of his time. He was also far too
candid for his liberal cousins to own up to.
A few years after Kahane's televised debate with McCloskey, he was assassinated in
NYC.
In any event, it is undeniable that blood/ancestry is at the heart of Judaism. The Law of
Return tells us so. Religiosity on the other hand has become somewhat incidental to
Jewishness. A committed, ethnic Jew (but an atheistic one) such as Allen Dershowitz, for
instance, is as 'Jewish' as any orthodox rabbi. Identity and ancestry is what matters.
Thus I appreciate Stern's criticism of his Jewish cousins who have saddled America with
top-down 'liberalism', a movement that's functioned as a court-ordered Trojan Horse inside
America.
Like his Jewish cousins however, Stern's still a bit of a fraud–since he relies on
double-standards, special privileges, and ancestral grievances to justify his unique
collection of rights as a land-grabbing Zionist.
Stern hypocritically derides non-violent whites in Charlottesville who want the same
rights for themselves in America as Jews get in Israel: to preserve their culture,
traditions, racial lineage, and majority status. These are core Zionist values. But Stern
would deny them to any and all American whites.
Stern is also disinclined to express any gratitude to his duplicitous, liberal cousins for
their decades-long, pro-Jewish activism. Yet Stern is beneficiary of their subterfuge. Jewish
activism helps explain why Jews have risen in America while others–such as the white,
working-class men in Charlottesville–have fallen.
US Liberalism (with plenty of help from Zionist Jews) coercively integrated America
racially (but not in Israel), opened our borders to all (but not in Israel) and erected a
towering wall between 'church and state' (but not in Israel).
These tricks have been good for the Jews, which includes Stern. He can now wear his
yarmulke proudly and not get laughed at–or punched (since its a 'hate crime'
today).
Liberal and 'secular' Jews also helped orchestrate Washington's de facto marriage to the
State of Israel. This has also empowered Stern. And to the delight of most Jews (both left
and right) the US has been largely de-Christianized over the past sixty years. This is more
smart work by Jewish jurists, lawyers, and academics–many with close ties to the
'liberal' ACLU.
As a beneficiary of all this, Stern should thank his liberal cousins for this political
black magic. Yet he pretends to object.
Stern is at least correct when he acknowledges that 'progressive' Jews have damaged the
West and that they are still doing so.
"I am honored to have this invitation to address the annual meeting of the Dallas Citizens
Council, joined by the members of the Dallas Assembly--and pleased to have this opportunity to
salute the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest.
It is fitting that these two symbols of Dallas progress are united in the sponsorship of
this meeting. For they represent the best qualities, I am told, of leadership and learning in
this city--and leadership and learning are indispensable to each other. The advancement of
learning depends on community leadership for financial and political support and the products
of that learning, in turn, are essential to the leadership's hopes for continued progress and
prosperity. It is not a coincidence that those communities possessing the best in research and
graduate facilities--from MIT to Cal Tech--tend to attract the new and growing industries. I
congratulate those of you here in Dallas who have recognized these basic facts through the
creation of the unique and forward-looking Graduate Research Center.
This link between leadership and learning is not only essential at the community level. It
is even more indispensable in world affairs. Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the
progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy,
handicap this country's security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world
full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be guided by the lights of
learning and reason or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the
possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to
every world problem.
There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without
alternatives, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking
influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable.
But today other voices are heard in the land--voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to
reality, wholly unsuited to the sixties, doctrines which apparently assume that words will
suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of
weakness. At a time when the national debt is steadily being reduced in terms of its burden on
our economy, they see that debt as the greatest single threat to our security. At a time when
we are steadily reducing the number of Federal employees serving every thousand citizens, they
fear those supposed hordes of civil servants far more than the actual hordes of opposing
armies.
We cannot expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade ago, will "talk sense to the
American people." But we can hope that fewer people will listen to nonsense. And the notion
that this Nation is headed for defeat through deficit, or that strength is but a matter of
slogans, is nothing but just plain nonsense.
I want to discuss with you today the status of our strength and our security because this
question clearly calls for the most responsible qualities of leadership and the most
enlightened products of scholarship. For this Nation's strength and security are not easily or
cheaply obtained, nor are they quickly and simply explained. There are many kinds of strength
and no one kind will suffice. Overwhelming nuclear strength cannot stop a guerrilla war. Formal
pacts of alliance cannot stop internal subversion. Displays of material wealth cannot stop the
disillusionment of diplomats subjected to discrimination.
Above all, words alone are not enough. The United States is a peaceful nation. And where our
strength and determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, not
belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will
be of no help.
I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the
major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe
away from this hemisphere--it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the
Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall's speech at Harvard which kept communism out of
Western Europe--it was the strength and stability made possible by our military and economic
assistance.
In this administration also it has been necessary at times to issue specific
warnings--warnings that we could not stand by and watch the Communists conquer Laos by force,
or intervene in the Congo, or swallow West Berlin, or maintain offensive missiles on Cuba. But
while our goals were at least temporarily obtained in these and other instances, our successful
defense of freedom was due not to the words we used, but to the strength we stood ready to use
on behalf of the principles we stand ready to defend.
This strength is composed of many different elements, ranging from the most massive
deterrents to the most subtle influences. And all types of strength are needed--no one kind
could do the job alone. Let us take a moment, therefore, to review this Nation's progress in
each major area of strength.
I.
First, as Secretary McNamara made clear in his address last Monday, the strategic nuclear
power of the United States has been so greatly modernized and expanded in the last 1,000 days,
by the rapid production and deployment of the most modern missile systems, that any and all
potential aggressors are clearly confronted now with the impossibility of strategic
victory--and the certainty of total destruction--if by reckless attack they should ever force
upon us the necessity of a strategic reply.
In less than 3 years, we have increased by 50 percent the number of Polaris submarines
scheduled to be in force by the next fiscal year, increased by more than 70 percent our total
Polaris purchase program, increased by more than 75 percent our Minuteman purchase program,
increased by 50 percent the portion of our strategic bombers on 15-minute alert, and increased
by too percent the total number of nuclear weapons available in our strategic alert forces. Our
security is further enhanced by the steps we have taken regarding these weapons to improve the
speed and certainty of their response, their readiness at all times to respond, their ability
to survive an attack, and their ability to be carefully controlled and directed through secure
command operations.
II.
But the lessons of the last decade have taught us that freedom cannot be defended by
strategic nuclear power alone. We have, therefore, in the last 3 years accelerated the
development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, and increased by 60 percent the
tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe.
Nor can Europe or any other continent rely on nuclear forces alone, whether they are
strategic or tactical. We have radically improved the readiness of our conventional
forces--increased by 45 percent the number of combat ready Army divisions, increased by 100
percent the procurement of modern Army weapons and equipment, increased by 100 percent our ship
construction, conversion, and modernization program, increased by too percent our procurement
of tactical aircraft, increased by 30 percent the number of tactical air squadrons, and
increased the strength of the Marines. As last month's "Operation Big Lift"--which originated
here in Texas--showed so clearly, this Nation is prepared as never before to move substantial
numbers of men in surprisingly little time to advanced positions anywhere in the world. We have
increased by 175 percent the procurement of airlift aircraft, and we have already achieved a 75
percent increase in our existing strategic airlift capability. Finally, moving beyond the
traditional roles of our military forces, we have achieved an increase of nearly 600 percent in
our special forces--those forces that are prepared to work with our allies and friends against
the guerrillas, saboteurs, insurgents and assassins who threaten freedom in a less direct but
equally dangerous manner.
III.
But American military might should not and need not stand alone against the ambitions of
international communism. Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on
the security and strength of others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays
such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain
their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky and costly,
as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes
possible the stationing of 3-5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth
the cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers. A successful Communist
breakthrough in these areas, necessitating direct United States intervention, would cost us
several times as much as our entire foreign aid program, and might cost us heavily in American
lives as well.
About 70 percent of our military assistance goes to nine key countries located on or near
the borders of the Communist bloc--nine countries confronted directly or indirectly with the
threat of Communist aggression - VietNam, Free China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Greece,
Turkey, and Iran. No one of these countries possesses on its own the resources to maintain the
forces which our own Chiefs of Staff think needed in the common interest. Reducing our efforts
to train, equip, and assist their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require
in time the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces. And reducing the economic
help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help defend freedom can have the same
disastrous result. In short, the $50 billion we spend each year on our own defense could well
be ineffective without the $4 billion required for military and economic assistance.
Our foreign aid program is not growing in size, it is, on the contrary, smaller now than in
previous years. It has had its weaknesses, but we have undertaken to correct them. And the
proper way of treating weaknesses is to replace them with strength, not to increase those
weaknesses by emasculating essential programs. Dollar for dollar, in or out of government,
there is no better form of investment in our national security than our much-abused foreign aid
program. We cannot afford to lose it. We can afford to maintain it. We can surely afford, for
example, to do as much for our 19 needy neighbors of Latin America as the Communist bloc is
sending to the island of Cuba alone.
IV.
I have spoken of strength largely in terms of the deterrence and resistance of aggression
and attack. But, in today's world, freedom can be lost without a shot being fired, by ballots
as well as bullets. The success of our leadership is dependent upon respect for our mission in
the world as well as our missiles--on a clearer recognition of the virtues of freedom as well
as the evils of tyranny.
That is why our Information Agency has doubled the shortwave broadcasting power of the Voice
of America and increased the number of broadcasting hours by 30 percent, increased Spanish
language broadcasting to Cuba and Latin America from I to 9 hours a day, increased seven-fold
to more than 3-5 million copies the number of American books being translated and published for
Latin American readers, and taken a host of other steps to carry our message of truth and
freedom to all the far corners of the earth.
And that is also why we have regained the initiative in the exploration of outer space,
making an annual effort greater than the combined total of all space activities undertaken
during the fifties, launching more than 130 vehicles into earth orbit, putting into actual
operation valuable weather and communications satellites, and making it clear to all that the
United States of America has no intention of finishing second in space.
This effort is expensive--but it pays its own way, for freedom and for America. For there is
no longer any fear in the free world that a Communist lead in space will become a permanent
assertion of supremacy and the basis of military superiority. There is no longer any doubt
about the strength and skill of American science, American industry, American education, and
the American free enterprise system. In short, our national space effort represents a great
gain in, and a great resource of, our national strength--and both Texas and Texans are
contributing greatly to this strength.
Finally, it should be clear by now that a nation can be no stronger abroad than she is at
home. Only an America which practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice
will be respected by those whose choice affects our future. Only an America which has fully
educated its citizens is fully capable of tackling the complex problems and perceiving the
hidden dangers of the world in which we live. And only an America which is growing and
prospering economically can sustain the worldwide defenses of freedom, while demonstrating to
all concerned the opportunities of our system and society.
It is clear, therefore, that we are strengthening our security as well as our economy by our
recent record increases in national income and output--by surging ahead of most of Western
Europe in the rate of business expansion and the margin of corporate profits, by maintaining a
more stable level of prices than almost any of our overseas competitors, and by cutting
personal and corporate income taxes by some $ I I billion, as I have proposed, to assure this
Nation of the longest and strongest expansion in our peacetime economic history.
This Nation's total output--which 3 years ago was at the $500 billion mark--will soon pass
$600 billion, for a record rise of over $too billion in 3 years. For the first time in history
we have 70 million men and women at work. For the first time in history average factory
earnings have exceeded $100 a week. For the first time in history corporation profits after
taxes--which have risen 43 percent in less than 3 years--have an annual level of $27.4
billion.
My friends and fellow citizens: I cite these facts and figures to make it clear that America
today is stronger than ever before. Our adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our
dangers have not diminished, our vigilance cannot be relaxed. But now we have the military, the
scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for the preservation and
promotion of freedom.
That strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions--it will always be used
in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations--it will always be used to
promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.
We in this country, in this generation, are--by destiny rather than choice--the watchmen on
the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and
responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may
achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward
men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our
strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but
in vain."
Comment: This is the concluding article in a series of 12 articles written in 2006
commemorating (at the time) the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of JFK. This day,
November 22nd, 2018, is the 55th anniversary of what can, in hindsight and in Truth, be called
the Day America Died .
... ... ...
The fact is, the assassination of John F. Kennedy was a form of control of the government of
the United States. It is the ultimate form of control of the election process. Understanding
this can lead us to understand what has happened to our country since that terrible day in
November, 43 years ago. Studied carefully, the assassination of John F. Kennedy can reveal who
really controls the United States and its polices, particularly foreign policy. As John Kennedy
himself said:
"For we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; in infiltration instead of
invasion; on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice; on
guerillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human
and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that
combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined, its
dissenters are silenced, not praised; no expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no
secret is revealed. It conducts the cold war, in short, with a wartime discipline no
democracy would ever hope to wish to match. ..."
He was right; but I think he didn't realize how far they were willing - and able -
to go.
Nowadays, we know how far they are able and willing to go: just look at the events of
September 11, 2001, which bear the same unmistakable stamp of the assassination of John F.
Kennedy. In fact, as I have mentioned before, the same gang is involved.
... ... ...
Laura Knight-Jadczyk is a seventh generation Floridian, a
historian/mystic and author of 14 books and many articles published in print and on the
internet. She is the founder of SOTT.net and the inspiration behind the Cassiopaean Experiment.
She lives in France with her husband, Polish mathematical physicist, Arkadiusz Jadczyk, four of
her five children, extended family, eight dogs, five birds and a cat.
The dumb thing is the Kennedys were up to their ass in deep state dirty dealing and well
understood how things were done. So, it does them no credit to have failed to strike first
against their enemies, to have used the full power of the presidency to crush their opponents
pre-emptively. Instead, they sucked out, rolled over and fed the machine Bobby.
Ned Ludd They went
into it with their eyes open, but could do nothing to prevent it except to wimp out. And they
refused to wimp out. Sometimes your fate, if you choose to meet it, is to be martyred.
"... Appropriating the land from its stewards was racialized war from the first British settlement in Jamestown, pitting "civilization" against "savagery." Through this pursuit, the U.S. military gained its unique character as a force with mastery in "irregular" warfare. In spite of this, most military historians pay little attention to the so-called Indian Wars from 1607 to 1890, as well as the 1846–48 invasion and occupation of Mexico. ..."
"... Even following the founding of the professional U.S. Army in the 1810s, irregular warfare was the method of the U.S. conquest of the Ohio Valley, Great Lakes, Southeast, and Mississippi Valley regions, then west of the Mississippi to the Pacific, including taking half of Mexico. Since that time, irregular methods have been used in tandem with operations of regular armed forces and are, perhaps, what most marks U.S. armed forces as different from other armies of global powers. ..."
"... A version of this article originally appeared in the Boston Review . ..."
"... Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz is the author of An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States . ..."
prior to its founding, what would become the United
States was engaged -- as it would continue to be for more than a century following -- in
internal warfare to piece together its continental territory. Even during the Civil War, both
the Union and Confederate armies continued to war against the nations of the Diné and
Apache, the Cheyenne and the Dakota, inflicting hideous massacres upon civilians and forcing
their relocations. Yet when considering the history of U.S. imperialism and militarism, few
historians trace their genesis to this period of internal empire-building. They should. The
origin of the United States in settler colonialism -- as an empire born from the violent
acquisition of indigenous lands and the ruthless devaluation of indigenous lives -- lends the
country unique characteristics that matter when considering questions of how to unhitch its
future from its violent DNA.
The United States is not exceptional in the amount of violence or bloodshed when compared to
colonial conquests in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and South America. Elimination of the native
is implicit in settler colonialism and colonial projects in which large swaths of land and
workforces are sought for commercial exploitation. Extreme violence against noncombatants was a
defining characteristic of all European colonialism, often with genocidal results.
The privatization of land is at the core of the U.S. experiment, and its military powerhouse
was born to expropriate resources. Apt, then, that we once again have a real estate man for
president.
Rather, what distinguishes the United States is the triumphal mythology attached to that
violence and its political uses, even to this day. The post–9/11 external and
internal U.S. war against Muslims-as-"barbarians" finds its prefiguration in the "savage wars"
of the American colonies and the early U.S. state against Native Americans. And when there
were, in effect, no Native Americans left to fight, the practice of "savage wars" remained. In
the twentieth century, well before the War on Terror, the United States carried out large-scale
warfare in the Philippines, Europe, Korea, and Vietnam; prolonged invasions and occupations in
Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic; and counterinsurgencies in Columbia and
Southern Africa. In all instances, the United States has perceived itself to be pitted in war
against savage forces.
Appropriating the land from its stewards was racialized war from the first British
settlement in Jamestown, pitting "civilization" against "savagery." Through this pursuit, the
U.S. military gained its unique character as a force with mastery in "irregular" warfare. In
spite of this, most military historians pay little attention to the so-called Indian Wars from
1607 to 1890, as well as the 1846–48 invasion and occupation of Mexico. Yet it was
during the nearly two centuries of British colonization of North America that generations of
settlers gained experience as "Indian fighters" outside any organized military institution.
While large, highly regimented "regular" armies fought over geopolitical goals in Europe, Anglo
settlers in North America waged deadly irregular warfare against the continent's indigenous
nations to seize their land, resources, and roads, driving them westward and eventually
forcibly relocating them west of the Mississippi. Even following the founding of the
professional U.S. Army in the 1810s, irregular warfare was the method of the U.S. conquest of
the Ohio Valley, Great Lakes, Southeast, and Mississippi Valley regions, then west of the
Mississippi to the Pacific, including taking half of Mexico. Since that time, irregular methods
have been used in tandem with operations of regular armed forces and are, perhaps, what most
marks U.S. armed forces as different from other armies of global powers.
By the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829–37), whose lust for displacing and killing
Native Americans was unparalleled, the character of the U.S. armed forces had come, in the
national imaginary, to be deeply entangled with the mystique of indigenous nations -- as
though, in adopting the practices of irregular warfare, U.S. soldiers had become the very thing
they were fighting. This persona involved a certain identification with the Native enemy,
marking the settler as Native American rather than European. This was part of the sleight of
hand by which U.S. Americans came to genuinely believe that they had a rightful claim to the
continent: they had fought for it and "become" its indigenous inhabitants.
Irregular military techniques that were perfected while expropriating Native American lands
were then applied to fighting the Mexican Republic. At the time of its independence from Spain
in 1821, the territory of Mexico included what is now the states of California, New Mexico,
Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and Texas. Upon independence, Mexico continued the practice of
allowing non-Mexicans to acquire large swaths of land for development under land grants, with
the assumption that this would also mean the welcome eradication of indigenous peoples. By 1836
nearly 40,000 Americans, nearly all slavers (and not counting the enslaved), had moved to
Mexican Texas. Their ranger militias were a part of the settlement, and in 1835 became formally
institutionalized as the Texas Rangers. Their principal state-sponsored task was the
eradication of the Comanche nation and all other Native peoples in Texas. Mounted and armed
with the new killing machine, the five-shot Colt Paterson revolver, they did so with dedicated
precision.
Having perfected their art in counterinsurgency operations against Comanches and other
Native communities, the Texas Rangers went on to play a significant role in the U.S. invasion
of Mexico. As seasoned counterinsurgents, they guided U.S. Army forces deep into Mexico,
engaging in the Battle of Monterrey. Rangers also accompanied General Winfield Scott's army and
the Marines by sea, landing in Vera Cruz and mounting a siege of Mexico's main commercial port
city. They then marched on, leaving a path of civilian corpses and destruction, to occupy
Mexico City, where the citizens called them Texas Devils. In defeat and under military
occupation, Mexico ceded the northern half of its territory to the United States, and Texas
became a state in 1845. Soon after, in 1860, Texas seceded, contributing its Rangers to the
Confederate cause. After the Civil War, the Texas Rangers picked up where they had left off,
pursuing counterinsurgency against both remaining Native communities and resistant
Mexicans.
The Marines also trace half of their mythological origins to the invasion of Mexico that
nearly completed the continental United States. The opening lyric of the official hymn of the
Marine Corps, composed and adopted in 1847, is "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of
Tripoli." Tripoli refers to the First Barbary War of 1801–5, when the Marines were
dispatched to North Africa by President Thomas Jefferson to invade the Berber Nation, shelling
the city of Tripoli, taking captives, and blockading key Barbary ports for nearly four years.
The "Hall of Montezuma," though, refers to the invasion of Mexico: while the U.S. Army occupied
what is now California, Arizona, and New Mexico, the Marines invaded by sea and marched to
Mexico City, murdering and torturing civilian resisters along the way.
So what does it matter, for those of us who strive for peace and justice, that the U.S.
military had its start in killing indigenous populations, or that U.S. imperialism has its
roots in the expropriation of indigenous lands?
It matters because it tells us that the privatization of lands and other forms of human
capital are at the core of the U.S. experiment. The militaristic-capitalist powerhouse of the
United States derives from real estate (which includes African bodies, as well as appropriated
land). It is apt that we once again have a real estate man for president, much like the first
president, George Washington, whose fortune came mainly from his success speculating on unceded
Indian lands. The U.S. governmental structure is designed to serve private property interests,
the primary actors in establishing the United States being slavers and land speculators. That
is, the United States was founded as a capitalist empire. This was exceptional in the world and
has remained exceptional, though not in a way that benefits humanity. The military was designed
to expropriate resources, guarding them against loss, and will continue to do so if left to its
own devices under the control of rapacious capitalists.
When extreme white nationalists make themselves visible -- as they have for the past decade,
and now more than ever with a vocal white nationalist president -- they are dismissed as
marginal, rather than being understood as the spiritual descendants of the settlers. White
supremacists are not wrong when they claim that they understand something about the American
Dream that the rest of us do not, though it is nothing to brag about. Indeed, the origins of
the United States are consistent with white nationalist ideology. And this is where those of us
who wish for peace and justice must start: with full awareness that we are trying to
fundamentally change the nature of the country, which will always be extremely difficult
work.
A version of this article originally appeared in the Boston
Review .
Gobachev rammed this treaty down the throats of the Russian MIC and they hated it. Free of
its constraints they can develop new launchers and warheads. The US redeployed the warheads
from |Pershing II mid-range rockets into B61 nuclear bombs to be flown on German, Belgian,
Italian, Dutch aircraft in breach of Non-Proliferation Treaty ..they have now been upgraded to
B61-12.
The Russians know the US wants a new arms race but they lack the nuclear engineers and
rocket motors. There is a Thycydides Trap and US wants to go pre-emptive, if EU states don't
punish Romania and Poland for inviting launchers on Russia's doorstep it is a useless
institution and nothing more than a US fig leaf
The Russians don't really lose much from the INF treaty these days. They have just
announced cruise missiles with virtually unlimited range, so who cares about 500-5,500
km?
The INF was always carefully shaped to benefit the USA anyway. It applies exclusively to
"land-based" missiles, while the US Navy has a huge fleet of ships that can carry cruise
missiles anywhere in the world.
The "Aegis Ashore" installations in Poland and Romania, to which Mr Putin has referred
repeatedly, point up the absurdity of the treaty's terms. The Americans have designed their
naval Aegis missile system so that it can be carried ashore and used there. So is that
"land-based" or not?
And what about Russian Klub-K (and possibly other) missiles that can be concealed in
ordinary freight containers and taken anywhere? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_c_PeIIeMw
Do they suddenly begin to infringe the INF the moment that container is hoisted off a
ship?
Yes but the INF Treaty really pertained to Europe and the fact that Reagan could fight a
limited nuclear war in Europe without affecting strategic balance that game is back in town.
It is Europe that is going to be the dead zone,
Why would anyone invest in Poland and Romania as front line battle states ? If you go to
the Fulda Gap you see the consequences of being a battle zone – no investment in
industry. Now Amazon has a giant warehouse but for decades this was the Tank Battlezone with
Point Alpha in Here looking across at the channel for the 8th Guards Army tank units surging
from GDR towards Frankfurt.
Simply turning Romania and Poland into battlefields gets us back to where Europe was in
1941
Barbara Lee being the only member of Congress to vote against the Authorization for the Use
of Military Force. The PATRIOT Act -- one Senator, Russ Feingold standing up and voting against
it when it was initially promoted. So, it was a very effective consolidation of thinking and this
bipartisan embrace of counterinsurgency as a normal part of American politics.
Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, continued some of the worst policies of the George W.
Bush administration. He expanded the global battlefield post-9/11 into at least seven
countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria. At the end of Obama's
second term, a
report by Council of Foreign Relations found that in 2016, Obama dropped an average of 72
bombs a day. He used drone strikes as a liberal panacea for fighting those "terrorists" while
keeping boots off the ground. But he also expanded the number of troops deployed in
Afghanistan. Immigrants were deported in such record numbers under Obama that immigration
activists called him the "deporter-in-chief." And then there were the "Terror Tuesday"
meetings, where Obama national security officials would order pizza and drink Coke and review
the list of potential targets on their secret assassination list.
For his liberal base, Obama sanitized a morally bankrupt expansion of war, and used Predator
and Reaper drones strapped with Hellfire missiles to kill suspected terrorists, including U.S.
citizens stripped of their due process. The Obama administration harshly prosecuted
whistleblowers in a shocking attack on press freedoms. By the end of his presidency, official
numbers on civilian deaths by drone were
underreported ; we may never know the
true cost of these wars, which continue today.
Bush, before him, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, took a hatchet to civil liberties:
He expanded National Security Agency surveillance on overseas communications and created a
system for unprecedented levels of surveilled communications of U.S. citizens. Much of this
happened with the support of leading Democrats. Mosques across the country and in New York City
were spied on. The authorization for the use of military force was passed in 2001 with the full
backing of every lawmaker except for
Rep. Barbara Lee , D-Calif. The bill created the justification for the forever wars that
still rage on 17 years later.
And steadily, all of the counterinsurgency tactics of these
foreign wars have crept back home, Bernard Harcourt argues in a recent book. Called "The
Counterrevolution: How Our Government Went to War Against Its Own Citizens" and it makes the
argument that through NSA spying; Trump's constant, daily distractions; and paramilitarized
police forces or private security companies, the same counterinsurgency paradigm of warfare
used against post-9/11 enemies has now come to U.S. soil as the effective governing strategy.
We are in the middle of an unprecedented paramilitarization of state and local law
enforcement agencies in this country.
All that said, the subject's personality cannot help shine through anyway. One understands
Berlusconi's original appeal: salesmanship on a massive scale. First as a developer and
salesman in the booming 1970s Italian property market. Then by founding Italy's first private
television stations, circumventing the state ban on private national channels Ride of the
Valkyries . Berlusconi's success as a businessman reflects the materialism and
superficiality characteristic of the postwar democratic West, his power derives from the
masses' bottomless desire for things and for spectacle.
In the 1990s and 2000s, Berlusconi in effect converted his media appeal and economic clout
into political capital. My Way does give a sense of the man's charm, brashness, and
sordid sense of humor. Nonetheless, one can't help laughing at his jokes and enjoying his
company. We see him give a pep talk to his football players. Berlusconi tells a black player
that he would like to meet his wife, because she is so beautiful, adding that he needn't worry
as he's already "too old." He tells a fifty-year-old man that he looks great, adding however
that he still doesn't look as a good as Berlusconi himself. This is funny, but Berlusconi, who
was almost eighty during the interviews, does look like an awful case of plastic surgery.
Berlusconi gives us a tour of his gorgeous villa at Arcore (20 kilometers from Milan),
showing his collection of Renaissance paintings, classical Greco-Roman sculpture (some given to
him by Muamar Gaddafi from Libya), and a whole room of paintings of . . . himself, apparently
given to him over the years by his many admirers. Among these we are shown a heroic painting of
Mussolini, with Berlusconi weakly protesting that this shouldn't be filmed, lest they give the
wrong impression.
Berlusconi is a man who gets what he wants. Call it a weakness for appetite or a strength of
will. In any event, Berlusconi tells Friedman that he has never ever gone to bed with his
often-changing wife/girlfriend without making love to her. So much passion. After having two
children with his first wife (who did not age gracefully), he moved in with and eventually
married Veronica Lario. They stayed together for many years but they eventually divorced and,
in keeping with the modern era of female empowerment, Berlusconi has since 2013 been required
pay her $48 million per year as part of their settlement. Berlusconi's girlfriend since 2012 is
50 years his junior and, for her service, will presumably receive an even bigger payout.
Let no one say that THOT-ery does not pay!
Berlusconi's penchant for girls was part of his undoing in another respect, namely in his
notorious "Bunga Bunga" parties with nubile young women, culminating in the trial alleging that
he had had sex with an underage Moroccan prostitute nicknamed "Ruby Rubacuore" (Ruby
Heartstealer). In the interviews, Berlusconi explains that the term "Bunga Bunga" comes from a
sex joke involving an African tribe . . . on which I will say nothing other than I was
astonished to hear it because it was also popular in the high school I frequented.
My Way , while an hour and thirty-eight minutes long, does not tell you all that much
about Berlusconi's politics. Besides his changing of Italian laws so as to escape prosecution
for various misdeeds, the little that is said largely speaks in his favor. He is extremely
proud of having hosted a NATO summit near Rome in 2002, at which Berlusconi, U.S. President
George W. Bush, and Russian President Vladimir Putin really hit it off. Berlusconi goes so far
as to claim that his summit "ended the Cold War," which is the usual hyperbolic salesman-speak,
much like Trump's perennial "tremendous." Certainly, this marked a warming of relations between
Moscow and Washington after the disagreements over the Kosovo War. On the substance, one can
only welcome attempts to bring peace and good relations among Europe, America, and Russia,
which have so often been needlessly in conflict.
Loro & My Way, by Guillaume Durocher -
The Unz Review
In the interviews, Berlusconi makes the case against the Iraq War and against the Libya War.
In both cases he argues, as a good realist, that you need a strong leader, in effect a
dictator, to maintain order in these multiethnic countries. To bring "democracy" would mean
only chaos. Berlusconi notes that Iraq is made up of three antagonistic ethno-religious groups
and that Libya is made up of some 105 tribes, who had regularly declared Gaddafi "King of
Kings." Since the dictators are gone, these Arab nations have known only civil war . . . an
impotence which naturally great benefits Israel, has allowed the foundation of the Islamic
State, and harmed Europe by sparking massive Afro-Islamic migration. The fall of Gaddafi's
dictatorship also led the spread of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which captured
Timbuktu in 2012, destroying some of that city's ancient shrines and mausoleums, one of the few
examples of indigenous Sub-Saharan African architectural heritage.
Berlusconi expresses the basic truth: multicultural societies are not compatible with
democracy or, to put it more positively, with civic politics in general. There can be no
solidarity without identity. Given this fact, the multiculturalists and immigrationists are
digging the grave of liberal democracy, and in their ignorance and delusion, are preparing the
way for new regimes. Let us hope that these will be indeed more coherent and honest forms of
government.
I do not know if Berlusconi actually privately opposed the Iraq invasion in 2003. In any
event, once Bush got on his way, Italy did send troops there. On Libya, Berlusconi was
outmaneuvered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whom Friedman accurately describes as
fomenting a war to boost his flagging approval ratings and distract from his lackluster
economic performance.
We then move to the eurozone crisis in 2011. In this instance, the Great European Ponzi
Scheme of malinvestment in southern European property and debt, collapsed, threatening the
whole continent's banking sector. Friedman does not give the watcher any good idea of why all
this was occurring. He does explicitly show, based primarily on U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
Timothy Geithner's testimony, that Berlusconi was taken out under pressure by Sarkozy and
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who blamed Italy's lack of "reforms" for the eurozone's ills.
The European Central Bank also threatened to let Italy go bankrupt unless Rome towed the
line.
Berlusconi was toppled and Mario Monti, a former EU commissioner and Goldman Sachs banker,
was parachuted in,
on the recommendation of George Soros , no less. I for one don't think that rule by a
small, rootless, international clique tends to be very stable. Monti proved monstrously
unpopular and was kicked out of office within two years. The Italians have since responded to
EU diktats by electing anti-Brussels populists of various stripes.
Loro & My Way, by
Guillaume Durocher - The Unz Review
Friedman interviewed a number of people in making his documentary. These include a (probably
rightly) indignant Italian prosecutor, a colorless Italian journalist, a former Spanish prime
minister, a former EU president, and even Putin himself. Not a whole lot of light comes out of
all of this. Strikingly, Berlusconi emerges as if anything the most likable character among the
whole motley crew of people interviewed, at that is saying something. Despite his more-or-less
hostile narration, the interviewer Friedman is shown constantly being friendly and making
ingratiating smiles with Berlusconi, only to dump him at the end of the film, saying "and I
never saw him again" with a credit role showcasing Berlusconi and his associates' various
convictions.
On Berlusconi the talented and opportunist politician, I can add the following which was not
mentioned in the documentary. He knew how to make the difficult deals to form Italy's
notoriously-unstable coalition governments, starting in 1994, with a short-lived alliance with
the regionalist Lega Nord and post-fascist National Alliance (who hated each other, essentially
over the Southern Question). He knew how to compaign for what the people wanted. His famous
2001 "Contract with the Italians" promised less and simpler taxes, infrastructure, more jobs,
more pensions, more police, and less politicians. Of course, he rarely delivered. In 2006,
constitutional reforms proposed by Berlusconi would have strengthened the prime minister and
devolved more powers to Italy's regions, but this was rejected by referendum.
The Italian journalist in the documentary points out that Berlusconi never did the "reforms"
necessary to save the economy, as he did not want to upset his electorate or his coalition
partners. In short, for all the kvetching, Berlusconi was too much of a democrat to get much
done.
Berlusconi was however decidedly anti-leftist. He wanted to reform the constitution because
it had been co-drafted by the "Soviets" (as a matter of fact, communist and Marxist parties
made up about 40% of the 1946 Constituent Assembly and to this day Italy's official emblem looks
communist ). When facing Romano Prodi's left-wing coalition "the Union" in the mid-2000s,
Berlusconi nicknamed it "the Soviet Union." Unlike in France or Germany, Italy had no
taboo on the center-right, including Berlusconi, making alliances with nationalist and
sometimes even neofascist parties. He was born in 1936 in what was then the Kingdom of Italy,
well into the second decade of Fascist government.
At a holocaust remembrance ceremony in 2013, Berlusconi argued that Mussolini's Fascist
government did many good things , all the while lamenting the alliance with the Third Reich
and participation in the holocaust (specifically, the deportation of Jews, although in fact the
survival rate for Italian Jews was among the highest in Europe and these deportations only
began after Germany had created their own puppet government in northern Italy, nominally led by
Mussolini). As a matter of fact, many figures as diverse as Ezra Pound, Charles de Gaulle, and
Richard
Coudenhove-Kalergi admired Italian Fascism's political stability and ability to promote
communitarian values stressing individual self-sacrifice for the common good. All this may
not be understood today however.
In the end, Berlusconi achieved little politically. He maintained good relations with
Russia, America, Israel, and Libya, the latter being of particular value in containing the
ever-rising tied of African illegal immigration. He had excellent instincts in general. But,
ultimately, he was merely an end in himself, masculinity without purpose.
Salvini's party has eclipsed that of Berlusconi
With the declining influence of the mainstream media and the ability of outsiders to appeal
directly to the masses through social media, we will no doubt see the rise of many more
populists movements of both left and right. Happily, in Italy itself, Berlusconian populism has
given way to that of Matteo Salvini ,
who while something an opportunist himself (like all electoral politicians, I am tempted to
add), is saying and doing many of the right things on immigration and demography . . . and is
getting even more popular as a result.
The opportunity here is in overthrowing an emotionally stunted and ideologically incoherent
establishment, which is destroying Western civilization based on a fundamentally incorrect
understanding of human nature. The risk is that we fall into mere demotism, with governments
mindlessly following the fluctuations of the debased desires and prejudices of public opinion,
which would certainly not be optimal either. From this, there will be more electoral demand for
economically unsustainable left-wing economic policies, and for environmentally damaging
right-wing policies. Neither is desirable, I do not rejoice at Trump's blowing up of America's
hills for coal and gas or Bolsonaro's proposals to further cut down the rain forests.
But this is what democracy means! This is the ineluctable product of the hegemonic
"anti-fascism" and rejection of all authority since 1945! To those who are upset with the
careers of Berlusconi, Trump, and Bolsonaro, I am tempted to quote Gladiator : "Are you
not entertained!? Is this not why you are here!?"
Loro & My Way, by Guillaume Durocher -
The Unz Review
Western men and women can no longer understand the ancient notion of justice: that justice
is a right hierarchy. Obviously, there can be no hierarchy or justice among "equals," for whom
anyone's claim to superiority is necessarily presumptuous arrogance. Westerners today are not
ready to hear or understand these truths. In the natural course of events, things must
necessarily get worse before human beings realize that they are doing or thinking something
wrong, and correct course. This takes time. Things certainly are not bad enough yet. We are far
too comfy.
In the meantime, we will see not only more Berlusconis, but many more Trumps, Bolsonaros,
Orbáns , and
Salvinis in the future, as well as Corbyns and Grillos. Loro & My Way, by Guillaume
Durocher - The Unz Review
you also have to live in the country you talk about, or be on close terms with someone
objective who is really friendly to you and lives there, before confidently drawing judgments
on politicians (or writers, or anybody).
Because interests, ego-interests and career interests, cloud reports and opinions.
In the specific, verbally and culturally assaulting Berlusconi during the time of his
being influential and charismatic was the national (and European) sport for the "if Trump
wins I leave the USA, no longer feeling safe" types -- from Organized Press and TV
"journalists" and "film-makers" to "poets", "singers', "thinkers", and, well, every sort of
"influencer".
The same mechanics at play with Trump in the USA.
He was not superficial and initially got elected with programs and projects ahead of the
time for Italy, meeting the opposition (on top of the Left, as said) of his allies, who were
aggrieved by his overwhelming popularity.
He was no Orban no Haider no Le Pen no Farage. The closest comparison is with Trump but he
was no Trump either.
Among other things, he was always pushing to abridge the gap between Italy and those few
countries ahead of it (very few, but stably ahead) -- thus drawing upon himself the ire of
those countries' establishment.
He pursued independence from European élites, and the USA, in foreign politics and
economic governance, as well as efonomically strategical "friendships" with Russia-Putin and
Libya-Ghaddafi.
Such independence was no longer tolerated when, in the mid-00s, the Financial Times &
Goldman Sachs folks gained greater than ever control on exactly foreign policy of European
countries and economic policy.
"The Markets" suddenly stopped trusting Italy's trustwhortiness amd ability to honour its
debts; the "International Press" went on describing financial instability and dire prospects
for Italy full-time, as they do when there's an end to achieve (and to be achieved
shortly).
Interest rates that had to be paid to creditors and people who's buy state debt soared
above any reasonable height, forcing the government's lapse.
Mario Monti, an economist who had served in the ranks of Goldman Sachs, and an
international-élite member, was made President upon, very clearly, orders from
abroad.
Suddenly The Markets and the International Press went back to finding Italy's finances and
financial prospects healthy, debt rates went back to their normal.
In 2018, after some years an independent goverment is elected again (Salvini-Di Maio), and
again you have the EU's economy chiefs, the Press that Matters, the Markets, the USA rating
agencies, all worried about Italy's financial conditions. And again this makes debt rates on
issued state bonds soar.
It happens whenever elected politicians show lack of obedience -- especially if they fail
to harass Putin, has Berlusconi then, and Salvini & Di Maio now, failed and fail to.
It happens whenever elected politicians show lack of obedience -- especially if they
fail to harass Putin, has Berlusconi then, and Salvini & Di Maio now, failed and fail
to.
Yup. The bond-ratings agencies are nothing but a tool of the globalist debt-vultures on
Wall Street. The whole ratings system is a total scam.
[Friedman] does explicitly show, based primarily on U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
Timothy Geithner's testimony, that Berlusconi was taken out under pressure by Sarkozy and
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who blamed Italy's lack of "reforms" for the eurozone's
ills. The European Central Bank also threatened to let Italy go bankrupt unless Rome towed
the line.
I heard a slightly different version of the story. I heard that Berlusconi was pushed out
of office when he threatened to retaliate against Berlin/Brussels by dropping the euro:
In any case, it's a real delight having Guillaume Durocher here at Unz.com. I had never
heard of him before, but I have so far enjoyed all of his articles. It's always good to get a
European droite nouvelle perspective on politics.
@Digital
Samizdat Thanks for your comment! Indeed Italy is perhaps the country for which the euro
is the worst fit. I can imagine business circles around Berlusconi being tempted to get out..
The story of AC Milan, mentioned only in passing here, is instructive: he doesn't know when
to walk away. This can be viewed as positive (tenacity!) or negative (blatant egotism!), but
the fact is his inability to let go means his hand gets forced and in the case of both Italy
and Milan, everybody ends up with a completely crap deal.
In the meantime, we will see not only more Berlusconis, but many more Trumps,
Bolsonaros, Orbáns, and Salvinis in the future, as well as Corbyns and
Grillos.
Let's be absolutely clear about this. Corbyn is no populist. He has little empathy for the
white working class and is in favour of large 3rd World immigration. In fact, Durocher's case
for Left Wing Populism does not stand up to any form of scrutiny. To paraphrase the
dramatist, the mainstream and far left want to dissolve the people and elect a new one. More
and more immigration, they believe, will result in more and more people reliant on welfare.
These people, when enfranchised, will vote for the parties of welfare – the Left. The
Left will be in power forever, so they believe. Given their vested interest, they are
inherently anti-Populist.
From this, there will be more electoral demand for economically unsustainable
left-wing economic policies, and for environmentally damaging right-wing policies. Neither
is desirable, I do not rejoice at Trump's blowing up of America's hills for coal and gas or
Bolsonaro's proposals to further cut down the rain forests.
The population of the US and Brazil 100 years ago was a fraction of what it is now. In
1917 the US population was about 80 million. Now it is 327 million, a 4-fold increase.
Environmental degradation is logical outcome of large and sudden increase in population,
especially in small areas.
It is even more marked in countries like China and North Korea where there is no democracy at
all.
It has little to do with "demotism" or "right-wing policies."
Large scale industrialisation is also associated with environmental degradation. Yet in
Western Europe and North America, in the last 60 years, air, land and water pollution has
been drastically reduced. In the early 1950s, thousands died of respiratory diseases due to
urban smog – the London Pea Souper being the most notorious. These are now just a
memory.
By contrast, countries like India and China have trouble even supplying the population with
clean water. Many millions of Chinese have tap water with toxic levels of heavy metals and
other pollutants. The resultant deaths also run into the millions.
Mr Durocher seems to have a talent for deducing the wrong inference.
Paolo Sorrentino's Il Divo about Italian PM Giulio Andreotti who was actually convicted of
ordering the murder of a journalist (although that was by the same prosecutors' office that
convicted Amanda Knox).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Andreotti
A joke about Andreotti (originally seen in a strip by Stefano Disegni and Massimo Caviglia)
had him receiving a phone call from a fellow party member, who pleaded with him to attend
judge Giovanni Falcone's funeral. His friend supposedly begged, "The State must give an
answer to the Mafia, and you are one of the top authorities in it!" To which a puzzled
Andreotti asked, "Which one do you mean?"
1990 Andreotti was involved in getting all parties to agree to a binding timetable for
the Maastricht Treaty. The deep Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union favoured
by Italy was opposed by Britain's Margaret Thatcher, who wanted a system of competition
between currencies. Germany had doubts about committing to the project without requiring
economic reforms from Italy, which was seen as having various imbalances. As President of
the European Council, Andreotti co-opted Germany by making admittance to the single market
automatic once the criteria had been met, and committing to a rigorous overhaul of Italian
public finances. Critics later questioned Andreotti's understanding of the obligation, or
whether he had ever intended to fulfill it.[50][51]
Italians are taking the French banks that made bad loans to it, and Germany that backs
those loans to prop up the EU single market (Mutualisation), for yet another ride. Macron was
elected as the banks' mutualisation man to making French toxic loans something Germany will
stand behind. Italy is the third largest economy in Europe and too big to fail and they know
it. Technocrat Mario Monti was the bankers' man to reduce Italy's live now pay never
lifestyle , but Italy knew it had a much stronger hand to play and so they elected a
populist. The Germans are going to be squeezed till the pips squeak.
says: November 24, 2018 at 5:38 pm
GMT 100 Words @Big Bill They fought that it
was Russia, that was holding them back, and by separating they could quickly achieve Western
European standard of living. The first guy to become president of independent Ukraine promised
people that they were going to "live like France" .in 5 years (!). lol
So their plan was something like this:
step 1: Separate from Russia.
step 2:
step 3: France
Lately, they began to think that the Ukraine's path to prosperity goes through EU
membership, hence popular support for Euromaidan, and you know the results Phanar Phantom
You're full of shit what the heck do you know about industry you useless little fart ?
are you an industrial engineer do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever or do
you just pull buzzwords like 'marketable skills' out your wazoo, as needed ?
Your industries are worth ZERO, if you're unable to sell your products, and the Ukraine
struggled to sell its manufactured goods after 1991. Its traditional customer – Russia
began to import Western goods.
You sound like Martyanov. lol It doesn't take any "special qualification" to figure out
that Soviet-era factories were churning out worthless crap – there is a reason why that
system fell apart, you know.
@Felix
Keverich Thanks for confirming that you have zero credentials in any technical field yet
you are somehow posing as someone qualified to talk about industry
Glad you are blocking me you little worm the Ostrich response do you cover your eyes and
ears when your teacher or parent [or caregiver, since you are obviously retarded] says
something that is true but which you don't want to hear ?
As for Soviet era factories churning out 'worthless crap' that would include the world's
best rocket engines, decades ahead of the west's technology ?
@Felix
Keverich Liberast opinion. People with this views destroyed the country, caused massive
displacement and demographic and social catastrophes. People with your views should not be
allowed to the levers of power for the distance of avangard shot. If to follow your logic USA
and China must dismantle and sell as scrap metal their MIC as they both clearly cannot
compete with Russian MIC. National manufacturing of everything is not about competition. It
is about souverenity in everything and national capability to provide own population both
with goods and means to make a living via manufacturing of everything needed. Current
situation with so much of everything made in China is an abomination that hurts too much
people around the globe. People with your views in Russia should be purged and preferably
executed for crimes against former Soviet people.
I find it strange that shamir who professes communist views is paying so much attention to
this basically religious spat about power and money. Wasn't it once th as t that religion is
opium for masses. It is here to keep population down so that it is easily fleeced by thieves.
The only value for Russia in orthodoxy at the moment is that the country completely devote of
ideology as per constitution there must be something to hold people together and give some
meaning to their existence.
"... Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region ..."
"... The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies." ..."
The hacking collective known as "Anonymous" published a
trove of documents on November 5 which it claims exposes a UK-based psyop to create a " large-scale information secret service
" in Europe in order to combat "Russian propaganda" - which has been blamed for everything from
Brexit to US President Trump winning the 2016 US election.
The primary objective of the " Integrity Initiative " - established
in 2015 by the Institute for Statecraft - is "to provide a coordinated
Western response to Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare."
And while the notion of Russian disinformation has become the West's favorite new bogeyman to excuse things such as Hillary Clinton's
historic loss to Donald Trump, we note that "Anonymous" was called out by WikiLeaks in October 2016 as an FBI cutout, while the report
on the Integrity Initiative that Anonymous exposed comes from Russian state-owned network
RT - so it's anyone's guess whose 400lb
hackers are at work here.
Operating on a budget
of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists,
military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference
in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.
The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin,
with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to "change attitudes in Russia itself" as well as influencing
Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked
documents states. -
RT
The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway,
Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its
sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region .
The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts
embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government
agencies."
The initiative has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the
US State Department , the
documents allege.
Some of its purported members include British MPs and high-profile " independent" journalists with a penchant for anti-Russian
sentiment in their collective online oeuvre, as showcased by a brief glance at their Twitter feeds. -
RT
Noted examples of "inedependent" anti-Russia journalists:
Spanish "Op"
In one example of the group's activities, a "Moncloa Campaign" was successfully conducted by the group's Spanish cluster to block
the appointment of Colonel Pedro Banos as the director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took just seven-and-a-half
hours to accomplish, brags the group in the
documents .
"The [Spanish] government is preparing to appoint Colonel Banos, known for his pro-Russian and pro-Putin positions in the Syrian
and Ukrainian conflicts, as Director of the Department of Homeland Security, a key body located at the Moncloa," begins Nacho Torreblanca
in a seven-part tweetstorm describing what happened.
Others joined in. Among them – according to the leaks – academic Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz, who wrote that "Mr. Banos is to
geopolitics as a homeopath is to medicine." Appointing such a figure would be "a shame." -
RT
The operation was reported in Spanish media, while Banos was labeled "pro-Putin" by UK MP Bob Seely.
In short, expect anything counter to predominant "open-border" narratives to be the Kremlin's fault - and not a natural populist
reflex to the destruction of borders, language and culture.
Trump administration policy on Ukraine is also strictly adhere yo the neocon playbook. As if
Victoria Nuland is strill working in State Departemetn and Cheney is the vice president.
Notable quotes:
"... in style and substance, there was no greater avatar for Trump's statement Tuesday than Gaffney's worldview. ..."
"... Trump explicitly namechecked the Muslim Brotherhood, a career-long hobby horse of Gaffney's, and depicted the Middle Eastern theater as straightforward. ..."
The controversial Washington think-tanker denied
to me in August 2017 that he'd directly advised the administration. To the contrary, he'd
actually endorsed and counseled Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump's bitter primary rival, in the late
stretches of the trench warfare 2016 primary (something, like most who have come over to Trump
after the primary, he has sought to minimize). But in style and substance, there was no
greater avatar for Trump's statement Tuesday than Gaffney's worldview.
Trump explicitly namechecked the Muslim Brotherhood, a career-long hobby horse of
Gaffney's, and depicted the Middle Eastern theater as straightforward. David Reaboi, an
alumnus of Gaffney's Center for Security Policy and now with the administration-friendly
Security Studies Group, fleshed the statement out Wednesday morning in an illuminating radio
interview. Reaboi has commented to
me in this publication before; there should be no reason to doubt his sincerity. But for
Reaboi, the joint action of last week's indictments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia coupled with
U.S. sanctions was sufficient, and it's time to get back to business.
... ... ...
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on
Twitter: @CurtMills .
The same things were said when the Queen of Great Britain as Head of State requested
President Eisenhower American Support for their Plans to overthrow an Iranian Democracy
in 1953 to save British Anglo-Persian Oil Revenues for Britons.
Or when Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle requested President Truman
American Millions in late 1944-45 intended to hold on to France's Indochina Vietnam,
Cambodia, and Laos Colonies to consolidate French control of the territory against Ho Chi
Minh determination for independence. Leading to the French 7 year war largely funded by
the United States few recall America refusing them costing another 2 Decades and another
5 Presidents inheriting this French Fiasco Imperialism.
Or when America Allied with Communists Joseb Besarionis Dze Jughashvili known as
Joseph (Koba) Stalin, murdered and imprisoned over 30 million Kulaks, Eastern Slavic
Europeans, and Soviet Union Subjects after making Peace with Adolph Hitler to carve up
Poland, and then required American Assistance of Billions to save Stalin's Communism from
Hitler no one objected?
All Presidents must weigh and decide past, current and future Alliances whether it be
President Carter and Reagan freezing American Iranian Assets and later returns by
President Obama in the Billions while Iran used the money to fund more Middle Eastern
Chaos and terror elsewhere. While President Trump reversed that signed Agreement and
added Sanctions to challenge Iranian Behavior. As well as promoting an Arabian Coalition
in the Middle East after 39 years of failure by the Aaytiollah's Regimes.
These controversies, policies, and outcomes are always up for debate, spin, and
accusations, and often depends on America being force to act and react Deeds of Deception
caused by other Nations Leaders especially, Absolute Monarchs, Communist, Socialist,
Fascist Dictators, and Theocratic Ayatollahs.
Saudi Arabia hosts US military bases. Saudi Arabia buys $billions upon $billions of US
weapons. Saudi Arabia is a major oil producer that aligns its activities with US oil
interests. Saudi Arabia is a big investor in the US. Saudi Arabia is a strong ally in the
Middle East. Murder is murder. It's never OK, and God will judge. However, the US has
massive vital interests at stake.
Trump administration is complicit in Khashoggi murder.
The US intelligence had intercepted calls between Riyadh, Washington and Istanbul about
Khashoggi a few days before the killing. It was aware of MbS plans to abduct or kill the
Journalist.
Instead of alerting Khashoggi, the American government let him walk in the Saudi
Consulate and be butchered there.
Trump is a puppet of military industrial complex (and Israel is just a lobbyist for the US military industrial complex,
nothing more nothing less). Now there is no questions about Trump's betrayal of his voters which is even more brazen then Obama
betrayal.
Notable quotes:
"... Of John Feffer's dystopian fiction, Mike Davis ..."
"... has written ..."
"... that "he's our twenty-first century Jack London" and Barbara Ehrenreich comments that he "paints a startling portrait of a post-apocalyptic tomorrow that is fast becoming a reality today." Now, Dispatch Books has just released ..."
"... , volume two of Feffer's ..."
"... series, a riveting tale of a planet that has fractured under the pressures of both nationalism and climate change. It couldn't be more topical or more gripping. ..."
"... So here's a reminder that, thanks to publisher Haymarket Books, ..."
"... readers can still get a half-price copy of ..."
"... clicking this link ..."
"... ! Do it while you can -- and any reader who would like to offer this website a little much-needed extra support in the age of you-know-who can for a $100 donation ($125 if you live outside the U.S.) get a signed, personalized copy of Feffer's new book. ..."
"... and check out the details at our donation page. And many thanks in advance! ..."
"... Note that the next ..."
"... piece will be posted on Tuesday the 27th. Have a fine Thanksgiving! Tom ..."
"... I remember Chalmers Johnson once describing to me his surprise on discovering that, after the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union imploded, the whole global military structure that Washington had set up -- which he later came to call " America's empire of bases " or our "globe-girdling Baseworld" -- chugged right on. ..."
"... There's never been anything quite like it, not for the Roman Empire, the British Empire, or the Soviet one either. And as TomDispatch ..."
"... President Trump, whose " instincts ," on the campaign trail, were to pull out of America's Middle Eastern quagmires, turned out to be ready to escalate tensions with China, Russia, Iran, and even (for a while) North Korea. ..."
"... on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) ..."
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the
author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position
of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
[ Note for TomDispatch readers: Of John Feffer's dystopian fiction, Mike Davishas
writtenthat "he's our twenty-first century Jack London" and Barbara Ehrenreich
comments that he "paints a startling portrait of a post-apocalyptic tomorrow that is fast
becoming a reality today." Now, Dispatch Books has just releasedFrostlands,
volume two of Feffer'sSplinterlandsseries, a riveting tale of a planet that has fractured under the pressures of both
nationalism and climate change. It couldn't be more topical or more gripping.
So here's a reminder that, thanks to publisher Haymarket Books, TomDispatch
readers can still get a half-price copy of Frostlands byclicking
this link! Do it while you can -- and any reader who would like to offer this
website a little much-needed extra support in the age of you-know-who can for a $100 donation
($125 if you live outside the U.S.) get a signed, personalized copy of Feffer's new book.Click
hereand check out the details at our donation page. And many thanks in
advance!
Note that the next TomDispatch piece will be posted on Tuesday the 27th. Have a
fine Thanksgiving! Tom ]
I remember Chalmers Johnson once
describing to me his surprise on discovering that, after the Cold War ended and the Soviet
Union imploded, the whole global military structure that Washington had set up -- which he
later came to call "
America's empire of bases " or our "globe-girdling Baseworld" -- chugged right on.
It didn't matter that there was no real enemy left on Planet Earth. It was, I believe, what
finally convinced Johnson that this country was indeed an empire. And here's the strange thing,
though it goes remarkably unnoticed in our world: that vast global structure of military
garrisons, unprecedented in history, ranging from some the size of American towns to small
outposts, has remained in place to this very second. Though little attention has been paid in
recent years -- despite the fact that it couldn't be a more prominent feature on this planet,
geo-militarily speaking -- there remain something like 800 American
garrisons worldwide (not counting, of course, the more than 420
military bases located in the continental U.S., Guam, and Puerto Rico), as David Vine reported
in his path-breaking 2015 book, Base Nation
.
There's never been anything quite like it, not for the Roman Empire, the British Empire,
or the Soviet one either. And as TomDispatch regular and U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen reports today, with our
military now in the process of transforming the whole planet into an even more militarized
place, those bases will be all the more relevant. So here's a small suggestion for all the
media outlets
covering President Trump in such a 24/7 fashion: Why not spare just one reporter to cover
that empire of bases on a planet on which, as Sjursen reports, the U.S. military is
increasingly focused on future wars of every imaginable sort (right up to the sort that
could leave this planet in shreds)? Tom
Planet of War:
Still Trapped in a Greater Middle Eastern Quagmire, the U.S. Military Prepares for Global
Combat
By Danny
Sjursen
American militarism has gone off the rails -- and this middling career officer should have
seen it coming. Earlier in this century, the U.S. military not surprisingly focused on
counterinsurgency as it faced various
indecisive and seemingly unending wars across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa.
Back in 2008, when I was still a captain newly returned from Iraq and studying at Fort Knox,
Kentucky, our training scenarios generally focused on urban combat and what were called
security and stabilization missions. We'd plan to assault some notional city center, destroy
the enemy fighters there, and then transition to pacification and "humanitarian"
operations.
Of course, no one then asked about the dubious efficacy of "regime change" and "nation
building," the two activities in which our country had been so regularly engaged. That would
have been frowned upon. Still, however bloody and wasteful those wars were, they now look
like relics from a remarkably simpler time. The U.S. Army knew its mission then (even if it
couldn't accomplish it) and could predict what each of us young officers was about to take
another crack at: counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Fast forward eight years -- during which this author fruitlessly toiled away in
Afghanistan and taught at West Point -- and the U.S. military ground presence has
significantly decreased in the Greater Middle East, even if its wars there remain "
infinite ." The U.S. was still bombing, raiding, and "advising" away in several of
those old haunts as I entered the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas. Nonetheless, when I first became involved in the primary staff officer training
course for mid-level careerists there in 2016, it soon became apparent to me that something
was indeed changing.
Our training scenarios were no longer limited to counterinsurgency operations. Now, we
were planning for possible deployments to -- and high-intensity conventional warfare in --
the Caucasus, the Baltic Sea region, and the South China Sea (think: Russia and China). We
were also planning for conflicts against an Iranian-style "rogue" regime (think: well, Iran).
The missions became all about projecting U.S. Army divisions into distant regions to fight
major wars to "liberate" territories and bolster allies.
One thing soon became clear to me in my new digs: much had changed. The U.S. military had,
in fact, gone global in a big way. Frustrated by its inability to close the deal on any of
the indecisive counterterror wars of this century, Washington had decided it was time to
prepare for "real" war with a host of imagined enemies. This process had, in fact, been
developing right under our noses for quite a while. You remember in 2013 when President Obama
and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began talking about a " pivot " to Asia -- an
obvious attempt to contain China. Obama also sanctioned
Moscow and further militarized
Europe in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine and the Crimea. President Trump, whose "
instincts ," on the campaign trail, were to pull out of America's Middle Eastern
quagmires, turned out to be ready to escalate tensions with China, Russia, Iran, and even
(for a while) North Korea.
With Pentagon budgets reaching record levels
-- some $717 billion for 2019 -- Washington has stayed the course, while beginning to plan
for more expansive future conflicts across the globe. Today, not a single square inch of this
ever-
warming planet of ours escapes the reach of U.S. militarization.
Think of these developments as establishing a potential formula for perpetual conflict
that just might lead the United States into a truly
cataclysmic war it neither needs nor can meaningfully win. With that in mind, here's a
little tour of Planet Earth as the U.S. military now imagines it.
Our Old Stomping Grounds: Forever War in the Middle East and Africa
Never apt to quit, even after 17 years of failure, Washington's bipartisan military
machine still churns along in the Greater Middle East. Some 14,500 U.S. troops remain in
Afghanistan (along with much U.S. air power) though that war is
failing by just about any measurable metric you care to choose -- and Americans are still
dying there, even if in diminished numbers.
In Syria, U.S. forces remain trapped between hostile powers,
one mistake away from a possible outbreak of hostilities with Russia, Iran, Syrian President
Assad, or even NATO ally Turkey. While American troops (and air power) in Iraq helped destroy
ISIS's physical "caliphate," they remain entangled there in a low-level guerrilla struggle in
a country seemingly incapable of forming a stable
political consensus. In other words, as yet there's no end in sight for that now
15-year-old war. Add in the drone strikes, conventional air attacks, and special forces raids
that Washington regularly unleashes in Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan, and it's clear
that the U.S. military's hands remain more than full in the region.
If anything, the tensions -- and potential for escalation -- in the Greater Middle East
and North Africa are only worsening. President Trump ditched
President Obama's Iran nuclear deal and, despite the recent drama over the
murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, has gleefully backed the Saudi royals in
their arms race and cold war with Iran. While the other major players in that nuclear pact
remained on board, President Trump has appointed unreformed Iranophobe neocons like John
Bolton and Mike Pompeo to key foreign policy positions and his administration still threatens
regime change in Tehran.
In Africa, despite talk about downsizing the U.S. presence there, the military advisory
mission has only increased
its various commitments, backing questionably legitimate governments against local opposition
forces and destabilizing further an already unstable continent. You might think that waging
war for two decades on two continents would at least keep the Pentagon busy and temper
Washington's desire for further confrontations. As it happens, the opposite is proving to be
the case.
Poking the Bear: Encircling Russia and Kicking Off a New Cold War
Vladimir Putin's Russia is increasingly autocratic and has shown a propensity for
localized aggression in its sphere of influence. Still, it would be better not to exaggerate
the threat. Russia did annex the Crimea, but the people of that province were
Russians and desired such a reunification. It intervened in a Ukrainian civil war,
but Washington was also
complicit in the coup that kicked off that drama. Besides, all of this unfolded in
Russia's neighborhood as the U.S. military increasingly
deploys its forces up to the very borders of the Russian Federation. Imagine the hysteria
in Washington if Russia were deploying troops and advisers in Mexico or the Caribbean.
To put all of this in perspective, Washington and its military machine actually prefer
facing off against Russia. It's a fight the armed forces still remain comfortable with. After
all, that's what its top commanders were trained for during the tail end of an almost
half-century-long Cold War. Counterinsurgency is frustrating and indecisive. The prospect of
preparing for "real war" against the good old Russians with tanks, planes, and artillery --
now, that's what the military was built for!
And despite all the over-hyped talk about Donald Trump's complicity with Russia, under
him, the Obama-era military escalation in Europe has only expanded. Back when I was toiling
hopelessly in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army was actually removing combat brigades from
Germany and stationing them back on U.S. soil (when, of course, they weren't off fighting
somewhere in the Greater Middle East). Then, in the late Obama years, the military began
returning those forces to Europe and stationing
them in the Baltic, Poland, Romania, and other countries increasingly near to Russia. That's
never ended and, this year, the U.S. Air Force has
delivered its largest shipment of ordnance to Europe since the Cold War.
Make no mistake: war with Russia would be an unnecessary disaster -- and it could go
nuclear. Is Latvia really worth that risk?
From a Russian perspective, of course, it's Washington and its expansion of the (by
definition) anti-Russian NATO alliance into Eastern Europe that constitutes the real
aggression in the region -- and Putin may have a point there. What's more, an honest
assessment of the situation suggests that Russia, a country whose economy is about the
size
of Spain's, has neither the will nor the capacity to invade Central Europe. Even in the bad
old days of the Cold War, as we now know from Soviet archives, European
conquest was never on Moscow's agenda. It still isn't.
Nonetheless, the U.S. military goes on preparing for what Marine Corps Commandant General
Robert Neller, addressing some of his forces in Norway, claimed was a "
big fight " to come. If it isn't careful, Washington just might get the war it seems to
want and the one that no one in Europe or the rest of this planet needs.
Challenging the Dragon: The Futile Quest for Hegemony in Asia
The United States Navy has long treated the world's oceans as if they were American lakes.
Washington extends no such courtesy to other great powers or nation-states. Only now, the
U.S. Navy finally faces some challenges abroad -- especially in the Western Pacific. A rising
China, with a swiftly growing economy and carrying grievances from a long history of European
imperial domination, has had the audacity to
assert itself in the South China Sea. In response, Washington has reacted with panic and
bellicosity.
Never mind that the South China Sea is Beijing's Caribbean (a place where Washington long
felt it had the right to do anything it wanted militarily). Heck, the South China Sea has
China in its name! The U.S. military now claims -- with just enough truth to
convince the uninformed -- that China's growing navy is out for Pacific, if not global,
dominance. Sure, at the moment China has only
two aircraft carriers, one an
old rehab (though it is building more) compared to the U.S. Navy's 11 full-sized and
nine
smaller carriers. And yes, China hasn't actually attacked any of its neighbors yet.
Still, the American people are told that their military must prepare for possible future war
with the most populous nation on the planet.
In that
spirit, it has been forward deploying yet more ships, Marines, and troops to the Pacific Rim
surrounding China. Thousands of Marines are now
stationed in Northern Australia; U.S. warships cruise the South Pacific; and Washington
has sent mixed
signals regarding its military commitments to Taiwan. Even the Indian Ocean has recently
come to be seen as a possible future battleground with China, as the U.S. Navy increases its
regional patrols there and Washington negotiates
stronger military ties with China's rising neighbor, India. In a symbolic gesture, the
military recently
renamed its former Pacific Command (PACOM) the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM).
Unsurprisingly, China's military high command has escalated accordingly. They've
advised their South China Sea Command to prepare for war, made their own set of
provocative gestures in the South China Sea, and also
threatened to invade Taiwan should the Trump administration change America's longstanding
"One China" policy.
From the Chinese point of view, all of this couldn't be more logical, given that President
Trump has also unleashed a "
trade war " on Beijing's markets and intensified his anti-China rhetoric. And all of this
is, in turn, consistent with the Pentagon's increasing militarization of the entire
globe.
No Land Too Distant
Would that it were only Africa, Asia, and Europe that Washington had chosen to militarize.
But as Dr. Seuss might have said : that is not all, oh no, that is not
all. In fact, more or less every square inch of our spinning planet not already occupied by a
rival state has been deemed a militarized space to be contested. The U.S. has long been
unique in the way it divided the entire surface of the globe into geographical (combatant)
commands presided over
by generals and admirals who functionally serve as regional Roman-style proconsuls.
And the Trump years are only accentuating this phenomenon. Take Latin America, which might
normally be considered a non-threatening space for the U.S., though it is already under the
gaze of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). Recently, however, having already threatened to "
invade
" Venezuela, President Trump spent the election campaign rousing his base on the claim that a
desperate caravan of Central American refugees -- hailing from countries the U.S. had a
significant
responsibility for destabilizing in the first place -- was a literal "
invasion " and so yet another military problem. As such, he
ordered more than 5,000 troops (more than currently serve in Syria or Iraq) to the
U.S.-Mexico border.
Though he is not the first to
try to do so, he has also sought to
militarize space and so create a possible fifth branch of the U.S. military, tentatively
known as
the Space Force . It makes sense. War has long been three dimensional, so why not bring
U.S. militarism into the stratosphere, even as the U.S. Army is
evidently training and preparing for a new cold war (no pun intended) with that
ever-ready adversary, Russia, around the Arctic Circle.
If the world as we know it is going to end, it will either be thanks to the long-term
threat of climate change or an absurd nuclear war. In both cases, Washington has been upping
the ante and doubling down. On climate change, of course, the Trump administration seems
intent on loading the atmosphere with ever more greenhouse gases. When it comes to nukes,
rather than admit that they are unusable and seek to further downsize the bloated U.S. and
Russian arsenals, that administration, like Obama's, has committed itself to the
investment of what could, in the end, be at least $1.6 trillion over three decades for
the full-scale "modernization" of that arsenal. Any faintly rational set of actors would long
ago have accepted that nuclear war is unwinnable and a formula for mass human extinction. As
it happens, though, we're not dealing with rational actors but with a defense establishment
that considers it a prudent move to
withdraw from the Cold War era Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Russia.
And that ends our tour of the U.S. military's version of Planet Earth.
It is often said that, in an Orwellian sense, every nation needs an enemy to unite and
discipline its population. Still, the U.S. must stand alone in history as the only country to
militarize the whole globe (with space thrown in) in preparation for taking on just about
anyone. Now, that's exceptional.
The United States has been at war every day since its founding, often covertly and often in
several parts of the world at once. As ghastly as that sentence is, it still does not capture
the full picture. Indeed, prior to its founding, what would become the United States
was engaged -- as it would continue to be for more than a century following -- in internal
warfare to piece together its continental territory. Even during the Civil War, both the Union
and Confederate armies continued to war against the nations of the Diné and Apache, the
Cheyenne and the Dakota, inflicting hideous massacres upon civilians and forcing their
relocations. Yet when considering the history of U.S. imperialism and militarism, few
historians trace their genesis to this period of internal empire-building. They should. The
origin of the United States in settler colonialism -- as an empire born from the violent
acquisition of indigenous lands and the ruthless devaluation of indigenous lives -- lends the
country unique characteristics that matter when considering questions of how to unhitch its
future from its violent DNA.
The United States is not exceptional in the amount of violence or bloodshed when compared to
colonial conquests in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and South America. Elimination of the native
is implicit in settler colonialism and colonial projects in which large swaths of land and
workforces are sought for commercial exploitation. Extreme violence against noncombatants was a
defining characteristic of all European colonialism, often with genocidal results.
The privatization of land is at the core of the U.S. experiment, and its military powerhouse
was born to expropriate resources. Apt, then, that we once again have a real estate man for
president.
Rather, what distinguishes the United States is the triumphal mythology attached to that
violence and its political uses, even to this day. The post–9/11 external and
internal U.S. war against Muslims-as-"barbarians" finds its prefiguration in the "savage wars"
of the American colonies and the early U.S. state against Native Americans. And when there
were, in effect, no Native Americans left to fight, the practice of "savage wars" remained. In
the twentieth century, well before the War on Terror, the United States carried out large-scale
warfare in the Philippines, Europe, Korea, and Vietnam; prolonged invasions and occupations in
Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic; and counterinsurgencies in Columbia and
Southern Africa. In all instances, the United States has perceived itself to be pitted in war
against savage forces.
Appropriating the land from its stewards was racialized war from the first British
settlement in Jamestown, pitting "civilization" against "savagery." Through this pursuit, the
U.S. military gained its unique character as a force with mastery in "irregular" warfare. In spite of this, most military historians pay little attention to
the so-called Indian Wars from 1607 to 1890, as well as the 1846–48 invasion and
occupation of Mexico. Yet it was during the nearly two centuries of British colonization of
North America that generations of settlers gained experience as "Indian fighters" outside any
organized military institution. While large, highly regimented "regular" armies fought over
geopolitical goals in Europe, Anglo settlers in North America waged deadly irregular warfare
against the continent's indigenous nations to seize their land, resources, and roads, driving
them westward and eventually forcibly relocating them west of the Mississippi. Even following
the founding of the professional U.S. Army in the 1810s, irregular warfare was the method of
the U.S. conquest of the Ohio Valley, Great Lakes, Southeast, and Mississippi Valley regions,
then west of the Mississippi to the Pacific, including taking half of Mexico. Since that time,
irregular methods have been used in tandem with operations of regular armed forces and are,
perhaps, what most marks U.S. armed forces as different from other armies of global powers.
By the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829–37), whose lust for displacing and killing
Native Americans was unparalleled, the character of the U.S. armed forces had come, in the
national imaginary, to be deeply entangled with the mystique of indigenous nations -- as
though, in adopting the practices of irregular warfare, U.S. soldiers had become the very thing
they were fighting. This persona involved a certain identification with the Native enemy,
marking the settler as Native American rather than European. This was part of the sleight of
hand by which U.S. Americans came to genuinely believe that they had a rightful claim to the
continent: they had fought for it and "become" its indigenous inhabitants.
Irregular military techniques that were perfected while expropriating Native American lands
were then applied to fighting the Mexican Republic. At the time of its independence from Spain
in 1821, the territory of Mexico included what is now the states of California, New Mexico,
Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and Texas. Upon independence, Mexico continued the practice of
allowing non-Mexicans to acquire large swaths of land for development under land grants, with
the assumption that this would also mean the welcome eradication of indigenous peoples. By 1836
nearly 40,000 Americans, nearly all slavers (and not counting the enslaved), had moved to
Mexican Texas. Their ranger militias were a part of the settlement, and in 1835 became formally
institutionalized as the Texas Rangers. Their principal state-sponsored task was the
eradication of the Comanche nation and all other Native peoples in Texas. Mounted and armed
with the new killing machine, the five-shot Colt Paterson revolver, they did so with dedicated
precision.
Having perfected their art in counterinsurgency operations against Comanches and other
Native communities, the Texas Rangers went on to play a significant role in the U.S. invasion
of Mexico. As seasoned counterinsurgents, they guided U.S. Army forces deep into Mexico,
engaging in the Battle of Monterrey. Rangers also accompanied General Winfield Scott's army and
the Marines by sea, landing in Vera Cruz and mounting a siege of Mexico's main commercial port
city. They then marched on, leaving a path of civilian corpses and destruction, to occupy
Mexico City, where the citizens called them Texas Devils. In defeat and under military
occupation, Mexico ceded the northern half of its territory to the United States, and Texas
became a state in 1845. Soon after, in 1860, Texas seceded, contributing its Rangers to the
Confederate cause. After the Civil War, the Texas Rangers picked up where they had left off,
pursuing counterinsurgency against both remaining Native communities and resistant
Mexicans.
The Marines also trace half of their mythological origins to the invasion of Mexico that
nearly completed the continental United States. The opening lyric of the official hymn of the
Marine Corps, composed and adopted in 1847, is "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of
Tripoli." Tripoli refers to the First Barbary War of 1801–5, when the Marines were
dispatched to North Africa by President Thomas Jefferson to invade the Berber Nation, shelling
the city of Tripoli, taking captives, and blockading key Barbary ports for nearly four years.
The "Hall of Montezuma," though, refers to the invasion of Mexico: while the U.S. Army occupied
what is now California, Arizona, and New Mexico, the Marines invaded by sea and marched to
Mexico City, murdering and torturing civilian resisters along the way.
So what does it matter, for those of us who strive for peace and justice, that the U.S.
military had its start in killing indigenous populations, or that U.S. imperialism has its
roots in the expropriation of indigenous lands?
It matters because it tells us that the privatization of lands and other forms of human
capital are at the core of the U.S. experiment. The militaristic-capitalist powerhouse of the
United States derives from real estate (which includes African bodies, as well as appropriated
land). It is apt that we once again have a real estate man for president, much like the first
president, George Washington, whose fortune came mainly from his success speculating on unceded
Indian lands. The U.S. governmental structure is designed to serve private property interests,
the primary actors in establishing the United States being slavers and land speculators. That
is, the United States was founded as a capitalist empire. This was exceptional in the world and
has remained exceptional, though not in a way that benefits humanity. The military was designed
to expropriate resources, guarding them against loss, and will continue to do so if left to its
own devices under the control of rapacious capitalists.
When extreme white nationalists make themselves visible -- as they have for the past decade,
and now more than ever with a vocal white nationalist president -- they are dismissed as
marginal, rather than being understood as the spiritual descendants of the settlers. White
supremacists are not wrong when they claim that they understand something about the American
Dream that the rest of us do not, though it is nothing to brag about. Indeed, the origins of
the United States are consistent with white nationalist ideology. And this is where those of us
who wish for peace and justice must start: with full awareness that we are trying to
fundamentally change the nature of the country, which will always be extremely difficult
work.
A version of this article originally appeared in the Boston
Review .
"... By Axel Dreher, Professor of International and Development Politics, Heidelberg University, Valentin Lang,Post-Doctoral Researcher in Political Economy, University of Zurich, B. Peter Rosendorff, Professor of Politics, New York University and James Vreeland, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
"... Countries that vote with the US when serving on the UN Security Council also receive more financial assistance. This column uses voting records in the Council to show that when these countries were US allies, they received more in US aid, but when the countries were not natural allies, they received more financial assistance from US-dominated international institutions instead. ..."
Dirty
Work: Buying Votes at the UN Security Council Posted on November
24, 2018 by Yves SmithBy Axel Dreher,
Professor of International and Development Politics, Heidelberg University, Valentin
Lang,Post-Doctoral Researcher in Political Economy, University of Zurich, B. Peter Rosendorff,
Professor of Politics, New York University and James Vreeland, Professor of Politics and
International Affairs, Princeton University. Originally published at VoxEU
Countries that vote with the US when serving on the UN Security Council also receive
more financial assistance. This column uses voting records in the Council to show that when
these countries were US allies, they received more in US aid, but when the countries were not
natural allies, they received more financial assistance from US-dominated international
institutions instead.
On 18 December 2017, the US vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that had
called for the withdrawal of US President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel. The resolution was supported by all remaining 14 members of the Council. Two
days after the vote, Trump threatened to cut foreign aid to countries that voted against the US
at the UN. "These nations that take our money and then they vote against us at the Security
Council We're watching those votes. Let them vote against us, we'll save a lot," he said.
The Trump administration is not the first to pay attention to these votes. When Hillary
Clinton, at that time the US Secretary of State, paid a visit to Togo in 2012, the press
questioned her choice of destination. Clinton explained that, "[n]o secretary of state had ever
been to Togo before. Togo happens to be on the UN Security Council. Going there, making the
personal investment, has a real strategic purpose When you look at the voting dynamics in key
international institutions, you start to understand the value of paying attention to these
places."
Several years earlier, the first Bush administration famously pressured governments to vote
in favour of the Security Council resolution approving Operation Desert Storm. When Yemen voted
'no', James Baker, the Secretary of State, reportedly told colleagues, "[t]hat's the most
expensive vote they ever cast." The US subsequently cut $70 million in foreign aid.
These anecdotes reflect a systematic pattern. In previous research, we and others have found
that countries that serve on the UN Security Council get financial favours. They receive more
US aid and more loans from international institutions in which the US commands a powerful
voice, including the IMF, the World Bank, and UN aid agencies. Countries also receive softer
IMF conditionality during their two years of temporary membership (Kuziemko and Werker 2006,
Vreeland and Dreher 2014, Dreher et al. 2015).
Linking Voting Behaviour to Favours
In recent research (Dreher et al. 2018) we asked whether these favours are linked to voting
behaviour in the Security Council, what the rewards might be for voting with the US, and the
method by which the US could 'buy' agreement, given that it would be frowned upon if done
openly. To answer the questions, we used an original dataset that comprehensively records
Security Council voting data.
We estimate that countries that voted with the US in the Security Council also got an
increase in US aid of about 40%. Those members that voted against the US, on the other hand,
got no more aid while serving on the Council than countries outside the Council.
Figure 1 UN Security Council decisions over time
Source : Dreher et al. (2018).
This pattern of increased aid is only observable for US allies (see Figure 2). While the US
government would not be criticised for giving aid to allies, it might be politically costly to
an administration to openly reward non-allies in ways that the US Congress and public could
see.
Figure 2 UN Security Council voting and US aid allocation
Source : Dreher et al. (2018). Notes : The figure shows the marginal effect of serving on the UN Security Council
while voting all the time with the US on bilateral US aid flows for different levels of
political proximity to the US (in concert with the 90% confidence interval). The histogram
shows the distribution of political proximity to the US among aid-eligible countries, measured
as voting alignment in the UN General Assembly.
These payments may be seen as improper. Also, an increase in foreign aid following a vote at
the Security Council might damage the legitimacy of the UN, when this legitimacy a key reason
for governments to seek Security Council support in the first place. The US public might also
frown upon providing aid to a country not viewed as a friend of the US.
An historical example suggests that these risks do not entirely prevent the US from buying
support from countries of this type. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US attempted
to influence political developments in Russia with billions in bilateral aid in the early
1990s. In the mid-1990s, these aid packages came under increasing popular pressure in the US
because of concerns over the budget deficit, and an unpromising outcome (for US interests) in
Russian parliamentary elections.
This led to large reductions in US aid in the late 1990s. But when the US turned away from
using direct bilateral aid, it started using obfuscated sources of funding. In 1995, the IMF
approved a $6 billion loan program. It increased it to more than $10 billion the next year, and
to the extraordinary figure of $18 billion in 1998. It is now clear that the US put pressure on
the IMF behind the scenes. Boris Yeltsin, the Russian President at the time, said that to get
the IMF to commit to these loans "[w]e had to involve [Bill] Clinton, Jacques Chirac, Helmut
Kohl, and [John] Major" (Gordon 1996). Apparently, the US exploited its influence on the IMF to
provide multilateral financial support when it had become difficult and politically costly to
give bilateral aid.
We find systematic evidence that this pattern held when looking at UN Security Council
voting data. While allies received increased bilateral aid from the US when they voted for the
US position, governments not allied with the US did not. Instead, when these governments voted
with the US, there were increases in loans to them from the IMF. Our results suggest that these
countries received an increase in IMF loans of about 50%.
Figure 3 UN Security Council voting and IMF loan allocation
Source : Dreher et al. (2018). Notes : The figure shows the marginal effect of serving on the UN Security Council
while voting all the time with the US on IMF loan size for different levels of political
proximity to the US (in concert with the 90% confidence interval). The histogram shows the
distribution of political proximity to the US among aid-eligible countries, measured as voting
alignment in the UN General Assembly.
It may be no surprise to find that powerful countries would be willing to buy influence.
Realpolitikhowever, has required different channels for different countries. We see that the
practice of buying influence around the world, while perhaps crude, has been nuanced and
finessed by obscuring the funding sources. The US may have openly funded its allies, but it hid
similar favours to less friendly states. Ironically, the international institutions that the US
used for this obfuscation are the same institutions that the Trump administration is currently
weakening in its attempt to put American interests first.
Ironically, the international institutions that the US used for this obfuscation are the
same institutions that the Trump administration is currently weakening in its attempt to
put American interests first.
Never listen to what a politician says but instead concentrate like a laser on what he
does. Trump talks a good nationalist game but what about his actions? Is he undermining the
US-led international imperial order? Once again, this article is evidence that he is indeed
walking the walk. What's always amusing is opponents of the US Empire on the good-thinking
left are in fact quite clueless about how to dismantle it. They concentrate of the immorality
of it all. But in reality the concept of nationalism, which is for the most part verboten to
the left, is the very ideology required to fight Empire. Which is why bad-thinking right
wingers like Trump are the only ones that will ever succeed in undermining and destroying the
US Empire. There is nothing ironic about it.
So Trump's blatant call for "allies" to vote with the US or face an aid cut-off was only
tactically aimed at influencing the poor countries on the Security Counsel. It's strategic
goal was to undermine the whole moral legitimacy of the UN by making it blatant that poor
country votes are on sale for international aid gimmedats.
It is an empire. The last remaining19th century empire.
Consider its scope: The reserve currencyof the world. Control of vassel stayes, by
sanctions, reward of stayes with aid, actually bribes, and with secret police and armed might
in a majoroty of counyries.
Um, it might have helped if the authors had spoken to somebody who knew how the Security
Council worked. Most SC resolutions are uncontentious, and a lot of effort goes into agreeing
compromise texts. There is seldom a "US position" as such. Far from attempts to influence
other nations being hidden, they are usually semi-public, with delegations lobbying for their
language, or their position on a particular paragraph. The cases mentioned are extreme ones:
most resolutions are fairly well supported from the beginning, if the Secretary General and
the P3 are together. There are certainly egregious cases – the 2002 /3 Iraq saga is the
best known – but they are quite rare, and in general resolutions are agreed by
consensus. The cases you hear about (Syria, Palestine) are precisely those where the system
fails to work. Incidentally, Clinton's visit to Togo can't really be held against her: it's
standard practice for permanent members to have consultations with non-permanent ones, and
her staff would have been incompetent not to have suggested it.
The USA is involved in Middle East because as Carter doctrine states access to the Mideast
oil is essential for the USA economy. Israel serves a role of the US proxy helping Washington to
achieve its goals in the region (which correlate with Israeli dream ob dominating the Middle East
and territorial expansion at the expense of Pelestinians and Arab neighbors, such as Syria ), not
vise versa.
Trump foreign policy is essentially continuation of Bush II policy. He, like Obama, betrayed
his voters from the very beginning.
Notable quotes:
"... I think the thing that made yesterday's statement more obnoxious than usual was the blatant lying to cover for that policy and the obvious enthusiasm for the relationship with Saudi war criminals. Blaming Iran for a war that they have almost nothing to do with when our government has enabled Saudi and Emirati invasion and occupation of another country for more than three and a half years is a hideous warping of reality that used to be called Orwellian before the president made it a regular staple of our news diet. ..."
"... Both the tenor and content of Trump's message (complete with multiple exclamation points) suggested that he thought it was something worth boasting about: look at all the blood money that I am bringing in! ..."
"... Like Pompeo's bogus certification that the Saudi coalition was making an effort to reduce civilian casualties when they clearly weren't, Trump's claims about the war on Yemen were lies and insults to the intelligence of every minimally informed person in the world. ..."
"... It's unlikely that GOP congressmen will get too worked up about it, particularly since they just had their asses handed to them in part for spending too much time doing favors for Israel and Saudi Arabia donors instead of working for the American people. ..."
An America First administration should unambiguously side with a legal resident of the
United States against a foreign government. Such an administration should also strive to keep
America out of other countries' wars.
Journalists in particular are rightly outraged by the tone and substance of Trump's
statement on Khashoggi. Let's not forget to direct some of that outrage toward what he said
-- and what our government does -- about Yemen too.
Our Yemen policy is despicable and indefensible, as I have said many times, and it is more
than enough cause for outrage by itself, but I think the thing that made
yesterday's statement more obnoxious than usual was the blatant lying to
cover for that policy and the obvious
enthusiasm for the relationship with Saudi war criminals. Blaming Iran for a war that they
have almost nothing to do with when our government has enabled Saudi and Emirati invasion and
occupation of another country for more than three and a half years is a hideous warping of
reality that used to be called Orwellian before the president made it a regular staple of our
news diet. Most Americans might understand that the U.S. sometimes has to work with awful
regimes when necessary, but there aren't very many that are positively excited about the
prospect of arming people that massacre schoolchildren and blow up weddings.
Americans understand that the U.S. sells weapons to several unsavory regimes that it calls
"allies," but I suspect there aren't many that think this is something to be celebrating and
defending. Both the tenor and content of Trump's message (complete with multiple
exclamation points) suggested that he thought it was something worth boasting about: look at
all the blood money that I am bringing in! Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is a
shameful one and one that urgently needs to be reassessed and radically changed, but Trump was
eager to show that he is incapable of shame and won't do anything that might offend Riyadh.
Like Pompeo's
bogus certification that the Saudi coalition was making an effort to reduce civilian
casualties when they clearly weren't, Trump's claims about the war on Yemen were lies and
insults to the intelligence of every minimally informed person in the world. Coming on the
heels of the House GOP leadership's
torpedoing of H.Con.Res. 138, the statement was a slap in the face to everyone that has
worked to bring an end to the illegal, unauthorized involvement of the U.S in this war. The
good news is that Trump's shameless endorsement of Saudi Arabia was so excessive that is is
already energizing bipartisan opposition to the war on Yemen and future arms sales, and it has
given critics of the U.S.-Saudi relationship every reason to dig into the president's
connections to the kingdom.
Getting involved in the Middle East was the worst foreign policy mistake America ever made.
The pundits, corrupt officials and politicians, and then the terror attacks that dragged us
into open wars there.
The incompetents and treacherous foreign operators who pushed us into this should be
hanging from lamp posts. Instead they're back in government, holding forth on television,
scribbling new idiocies in op-ed pages, or corrupting young people in Ivy League schools.
Nauseating. It makes one yearn for a few years of real populism, real justice, making
those responsible pay for what they did.
Yemen is a human slaughterhouse perpetrated by unfeeling war criminals that need to be
arrested and put on trial for their evil crimes against humanity. It is also a sign of how
our supposed "democratic societies" have descended into outright gangsterism when we supply
the weapons for the carnage committed. Trump and the other monsters that support this hell on
earth, I believe are totally evil.
@in general – "Getting involved in the Middle East was the worst foreign policy
mistake America ever made. "
@Stepehn J. – "how our supposed "democratic societies" have descended into
outright gangsterism when we supply the weapons for the carnage committed. Trump and the
other monsters that support this hell on earth, I believe are totally evil."
Hear, hear.
Part of the reason our bad decision to get involved in the Middle East had such evil
effects was because we made friends with evil regimes. As conservatives we defer to tradition
as a source of wisdom and truth. Consider then that nearly every traditional word in the
Western vocabulary for the Middle East carries with it the stink of deception, lying,
torture, perversion, decadence, sadism, and corruption.
Stupidly, we let foreign lobbies push us into that region. We lay down with dogs, we now
feel dirty, stupid, ripped off and used, and we notice that our own leaders act more and more
like the scum that run our "no daylight" friends over there.
Big surprise.
We need to get out. Yes, we have much to atone for, and eventually we may have to pay for
what these criminals did in our name, but in the mean time the best thing we can do is just
get out.
Lies about the Middle East seem to be the only item on the menu these days. The latest from
that weird Washington paper called the "Free Beacon" is disseminating more Israeli
disinformation on Iran, replete with unnamed sources, the usual crap, apparently intending to
make Trump's Iran sanctions still harsher by creating an illusion of congressional momentum
in that direction.
It's unlikely that GOP congressmen will get too worked up about it, particularly since
they just had their asses handed to them in part for spending too much time doing favors for
Israel and Saudi Arabia donors instead of working for the American people. On the other
hand, it looks like they're now once again carrying water for Saudi Arabia instead of working
for the American people, doesn't it? And putting Americans in danger of terror attacks by the
relatives of the innocent civilians and children that the Saudis are killing.
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole
west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating
about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in
2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some
totally obscure Jewish activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National
Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Jewish Committee. If that doesn't qualify him
as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a
Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.
We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until
the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario,
the great material wealth of the Jewish community will continue to give it significant
advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power
is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft
money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to
Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with
selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Jewish voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the
nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los
Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more
quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a
matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms
us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to
play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very
scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least
a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the
new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often
competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new
immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south
Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go
before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent
enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no
melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in
a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions
that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American
alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese,
and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided
Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is
that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger
Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not
think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans,
Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Jewish legislative
representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S.
Senates with 10 Jewish members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court
to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be
we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually
believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will
go to Israel?
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole
west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating
about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in
2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some
totally obscure Zionist activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National
Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Zionist Committee. If that doesn't qualify him
as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Zionist Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a
Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.
We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until
the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario,
the great material wealth of the Zionist community will continue to give it significant
advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power
is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft
money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to
Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with
selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Zionist voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the
nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los
Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more
quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a
matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms
us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to
play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very
scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least
a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the
new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often
competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new
immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south
Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go
before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent
enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no
melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Zionist community is thus in
a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions
that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American
alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese,
and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided
Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is
that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger
Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not
think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans,
Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Zionist legislative
representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S.
Senates with 10 Zionist members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court
to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be
we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually
believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will
go to Israel?
If Steinlight was obscure or not, I do not know.
What struck me in one of his articles is how he sees the holocaust story as essential to Zionist power in the USA.
Also in that article he wondered if at some point in time Jews might be driven out of the
USA, 'but, there is always the life boat Israel'.
That Israel will collapse the minute Zionist power in the USA [eventually] ends, he seems unable to see
this.
About your quote, it seems to have been written before it became clear to the world that
western power is diminishing.
So even if Zionist power over the West remains, Zionist power in the world is diminishing
too.
NATO, EU, Pentagon, neocons, whatever, may still want war with Russia, my idea is that on the other
hand that more and more people see this intention, and are absolutely against.
While western influence is receding, Assad still is there, Russia has bases in Syria, Erdogan, on what side is he ?; and so on and so forth.
The battle cry 'no more war for Israel' exists for a long time in the USA. And I interpret discussions on
this side of the Atlantic about increasing anti-Semitism as the acknowledgement of the fact that more and more people
on this side begin to criticize Zionists, especially with regard to Palestinians.
Masha and the Bear is produced by a studio in Moscow
A programme about a mischievous girl and a bear watched by millions of British children
is accused of being a "soft propaganda" tool for the Kremlin (Mark Bridge writes). The
English-language Masha and the Bear has more than 4.18 million subscribers on YouTube and, in
various languages, the animated series has gained 40 billion views across 13
channels.
Children enjoy watching the feisty little girl and her gentle giant protector. However,
critics in Russia's neighbouring states have claimed the series, from a Moscow studio, is
part of the country's propaganda machine. Professor Anthony Glees, of the University of
Buckingham, an intelligence expert, said: "Masha is feisty, even rather nasty, but also
plucky. She punches above her slight weight. It's not far-fetched to to say that she's acting
like Putin".
As for the bear, the author recalled the position of the teacher of Tallinn University
Priit Khybemyagi, who stated that this character is intended to "change the image of Russia
in the minds of children from negative to positive." Khybemyagi considered this to be a
threat to n national security .
At the same time, the Lithuanian critics were confused by the USSR border guard cap
Masha wears in an episode where she is chasing a hare out of the bear's garden. They decided
that in this way Russia was demonstrating "the defence of its border".
From the most prestigious of British "quality" newspapers.
For your delight and delectation, Episode 58 of Masha and the Bear:
TheRealNews
Published on 20 Nov 2018
CIA officials are signaling Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman must be replaced. Is this all about the killing of Jamal
Khashoggi? Professor Asad AbuKhalil says there are other political reasons.
Fear not! I heard on the news on my way home that Trump has decided Saudi Arabia will not be
punished for the killing of Khahsoggi with termination of current arms contracts. The Donald
reasons that if that happens, the KSA will just buy its weapons elsewhere. And nobody in the
military-industrial complex wants that. I am very confident Justin Trudeau will interpret
that as a signal that Canada likewise should not cut off its nose to spite its face, and so
Canada will not 'punish' its good friend, either. Therefore, Saudi Arabia will experience no
punishment whatsoever for its admitted murder of an inconvenient American journalist. There
are limits to western indignation, after all. So the west will content itself with revoking
the KSA's invitation to the Spring Strawberry Social, and double down on its insistence that
Crimea is Ukraine and must be returned to Kiev's control, and the west will never accept its
'annexation'. Never, never, never. There are some issues on which the west has spine to
spare. So if you want a noisy western journalist removed, slip the Saudis a few bucks, and
they can probably make it happen with no recriminations.
The recognition of Crimea as part of Ukraine by Washington and its minions is totally
worthless. It is not based on law and justice, it is based on self-interest (as in the USA
had big plans to acquire Crimea and build a massive naval base there). The use of the word
annexation is propaganda drivel.
Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1991 and the ICJ has ruled that
local ethnic majorities have a right to self determination. If independence is good enough
for Kosovo, it is good enough for Crimea. No amount of special pleading by Washington and its
bootlicks about Kosovo being "special" has any merit.
I'm afraid you are wrong about the ICJ Kirill. The ICJ dodged the actual issue. They ruled
that making a declaration of independence is not against international law, not
whether anyone/whatever/blah blah blah actually has the right to independence. Possibly
because they did not want to cross Pandora's Rubicon Box
the adoption of the declaration of independence of the 17 February 2008 did not violate
general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations
of independence
####
Some call it 'unique', others call it a precedent , therefore 'not unique'. If the
West argues that the ICJ said it was ok, then it is also ok for Crimea to declare
independence. Or, if they claim that Crimea is not independent, that Kosovo cannot be either,
hence, as you point out the use of the word ' annexation ' and other creative
circumlocutions to avoid mentioning that secession was first and the clear comparison with
Kosovo which would not serve them well at all.
The International Court of Justice today held that
international law did not prohibit Kosovo's
declaration of independence, while sidestepping the
larger issue of Kosovo's statehood
####
But, this is not the first time the West has decided what international law is for itself
when back in 1991 the European Council ministers themselves appointed the Badinter Commission
to give it a legal figleaf for recognizing the administrative borders of Yugoslavia as
international. I've posted this link before, but once more with feeling:
Thanks for the clarification. But it is all a house of cards. Given that empires and
countries have continually fissioned into pieces through the whole of relevant history, the
notion of "territorial integrity" is bogus and a corollary of "might makes right". As long as
the country can suppress secessionists it has territorial integrity, when it becomes too weak
everything falls apart. There is no international law. And if ware to assume a common law
regime that is not maintained by legislatures, then secession is fully legal if the local
majority wants it hard enough.
We know it is nothing but the Law of the Jungle. It's just that the fancy dress shop
has expanded and has a lot more more costumes on offer to its clients.
when the west trots out its I-never-said that-exactly smokescreen, it is helpful to read
what various western countries wrote as legal opinions, and the arguments they used to
support their reasoning. Where Kosovo is concerned, a classic is the Polish opinion, written
by (or more likely for) its then-Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski. He wrote, in part;
" a state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a
population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by
sovereignty the existence of the state is a question of fact, the effects of recognition by
other states are purely declaratory. A declaration of independence is merely an act that
confirms these factual circumstances, and it may be difficult to assess such an act in purely
legal terms."
Legal opinions are usually replete with bafflegab to confuse the easily-bored and the
pressed-for-time readers. But Mr. Sikorski made what he must have believed was a very
convincing case that a sovereign state-within-a-state is characterized by an ethnic
population, a pre-existing degree of autonomy (so that the entity demonstrates the capability
to function autonomously), and its own functioning institutions such as banks and
infrastructure.
Which of those is not descriptive of Crimea? It was even called "The Autonomous Republic
of Crimea", for Christ's sake. Sikorski doubtless had an inkling that the Kosovo precedent
might come back to bite NATO, and so tried to duck a justification which might read like a
precedent, but it was unavoidable.
These American fucktards actually think they can replace Russian gas supply to the EU. With
what you utter void heads? America had a net export capacity of 5 bcm in 2017 because it
imported about 87 bcm from Canada. When you fuckwad, douchebags get 150 bcm export capacity,
then start yapping. Until then, STFU.
Of course, it is clear to anyone with a functional brain that the US is totally dishonest
on claiming to want to supply the EU. In fact, it wants to saddle the EU with onerous LNG
contracts to third parties (e.g. Qatar) who can currently and for the near term supply the
volumes of LNG needed. At the same time the US damages the Asian tigers by increasing LNG
prices.
It is time for all the US bootlicks (Japan, the EU) to tell Uncle Scumbag to shove himself
in his own ass. The US is not even pretending to treat these countries with respect.
One way or another, Gazprom is going to have to pay Ukraine $2.6 Billion, so they might as
well just do it and have it over with. Of course the Ukies will prance and jump up and down
in the streets and yell 'Slava Ukrainy' – and hasten off to prepare new lawsuits in
search of more money from the Russian state. But a Swiss court has ordered all Nord Stream
partners to not make any payments to Gazprom, instead to pay all monies owed to Gazprom to
Swedish bailiffs, who will redistribute it to Ukraine until they recover all their money.
No, you're right; Magnitsky was a tax accountant employed by Firestone Duncan, the auditing
firm in its turn employed by Hermitage Capital Management. I don't know if the 'Duncan' is
still part of the outfit, but Firestone Duncan was headed by Jamison Firestone. He's an
American lawyer, born in Los Angeles and a member of the New York state bar.
I and others have hazarded a guess that Magnitsky was persistently referred to as a lawyer
because testimony between a lawyer and his/her client is protected by attorney-client
privilege; thus, much of what the Russian state might want to know from Magnitsky might fall
under this protection. But of course Russia would not be fooled into thinking he was a lawyer
– the device was likely just for western consumption, so Browder could scream that
Russia was suborning testimony illegally from Magnitsky.
Browder, however, had no real reason to believe Magnitsky was a lawyer, as he admitted
when questioned under oath.
" In a 2015 deposition regarding Prevezon, Browder again described Magnitsky as his
lawyer. He was quickly questioned by opposing counsel. This time, Browder was under oath
(page 25):
Q: Mr. Magnitsky is an attorney; you think that's accurate?
BROWDER: He was my attorney.
Q: I see. And he had a law degree in Russia?
BROWDER: I'm not aware that he did.
Q: I see. And he went to law school?
BROWDER: No.
Magnitsky had been granted power of attorney on several occasions, but he was not a
lawyer. As Browder would detail in his deposition, when there was a 2002 challenge regarding
tax payments, Magnitsky represented Hermitage in court."
That's a very useful source, incidentally; it discusses that Magnitsky never once
mentioned in his testimony the tax fraud which the Russian government supposedly perpetrated
to steal millions, and Hermitage did not lose anything thereby; the Russian treasury absorbed
the loss. And the fraud was discovered by testimony delivered by Rimma Starova, who worked
for one of the shell companies accused. But Magnitsky is regularly and stubbornly credited
with having discovered the theft, and his alleged stubborn investigation is in turn credited
with his arrest, to get him out of the way.
Browder agreed to be deposed in 2015, in an action he initiated against Prevezon, which
firm he accused of using the profits from the alleged tax rebate scheme to purchase New York
real estate. Prevezon was represented in this action by Natalia Veselnitskaya. I'm sure you
will recognize her name.
Here are a couple of my old posts, one of them an excellent one by kovane which drew on
some Russian sources and which demonstrated that Browder – in collusion with Magnitsky
– claimed tax deductions for hiring handicapped employees who either did not perform
the jobs for which they had been hired or did no work at all. Magnitsky signed their
employment books, and Browder himself signed off on the tax deduction application. They
pertain directly to the Magnitsky deception and to Browder's slippery background.
"... Browder is chuffed to pieces, because it is a big victory for him and his pal Khodorkovsky. ..."
"... Pretty soon it will be every country for itself, with ad-hoc coalitions forming for short-term situations, and the whole international system of justice and law will just fall apart. For which you can thank ruthless crooks like Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. So Browder might as well have said thanks for being the saps I always knew you were. ..."
People should remember, when international institutions continue to falter and crumble after
all the decades of effort to build them, that they were doing what makes Michael McFaul
happy. I hope that's enough.
Oh well, whatever tickles these pathetic people's fantasies Michael McFawl going
buuuuk-buk-buk and Bill Brawder ('cos he's full of electrolytes) must not have very much to
do these days except think about what Vladimir Putin does every early morning.
Realistically, this IS a tactical defeat for Russia. The votes had already been counted, and
Prokopchuk was pretty much a shoo-in. Then the U.S. launched a campaign to stop this, and
must have intimidated a lot of the countries into changing their vote.
Russophiles should just admit that it was a tactical defeat, shrug it off, and continue
the war Because it IS a war. One battle lost Realistically.
As I keep saying, it is a tactical defeat for international institutions. They are exposed as
merely fronts for American influence, with no genuine objectivity. Prokopchuk is already a
Deputy Head of Interpol, and will remain one. Browder was simply exercising self-preservation
disguised as the usual progressive activism, but when people who were in a position to cast
votes see that they are being personally thanked by Michael Mcfaul, then by God any one of
them who does not realize he or she has been had is thicker than most people are who are
allowed out unsupervised.
Russia – and Putin – was never going to 'run' Interpol; in fact, if Prokopchuk
had won, the USA would be tying itself in knots trying to impede every Interpol investigation
after that, just to spite Russia. Washington simply did not want a Russian to win, and it was
successful in scaring enough people to prevent it from happening. But Prokopchuk hasn't gone
away, and will still be as influential as he was before. Nothing has really changed very much
at Interpol, but the USA just publicly turned on a huge influence campaign to change the
decision. Does that mean Interpol is just another political western tool? It surely does. Who
can't see that now? Anyone?
Browder is chuffed to pieces, because it is a big victory for him and his pal
Khodorkovsky. They were the two 'high-profile dissidents' who were cited in a
flood-the-English-speaking newspapers campaign that said Putin was about to get control of
Interpol. They pointed out that the Nazis had control over it in the 1930's, but apparently
that was not as bad as Putin running it. Of course they managed to panic enough voters that
the Russian who had been the favourite was repudiated. But the whole thing is just too
childish for words, because the net effect is to showcase how political international
institutions have become, and undermine confidence in them.
Pretty soon it will be every country for itself, with ad-hoc coalitions forming for
short-term situations, and the whole international system of justice and law will just fall
apart. For which you can thank ruthless crooks like Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. So
Browder might as well have said thanks for being the saps I always knew you were.
Prosecutor General: Magnitsky chemically poisoned as a diversion on Browder's
orders
You dirty Russian rats can't pin that goddam rap on me!!!
A new criminal case has been opened in the Russian Federation against William
Browder, founder of the Hermitage Capital Foundation, international financial speculator,
lobbyist for anti-Russian sanctions and a sponsor of a significant part of the Russian
liberal opposition.
Details revealed at a special briefing organized by the Office of the Prosecutor
General of the Russian Federation.
Browder has been accused of creating a criminal organization (part 1 of article 210 of
the criminal code), which had been operating since 1999, which was formed for "committing
serious economic crimes on Russian territory and that of other countries". Nikolay Atmon'ev,
advisor to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, said that companies in Cyprus,
Latvia and Switzerland had ben established in Browder's interests and had cashed and
laundered hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Office of the Prosecutor General believes it "very likely" that the auditor Sergei
Magnitsky and several other of his accomplices were killed on Browder's direct orders because
they were undesirable witnesses: "Initially, the deaths of Gasanov, Kurochkin and Magnitsky
were considered to have been through natural causes, because of sicknesses that they had; the
death of Korobyeinikov seemed to have been accidental. However, further data was obtained,
indicating the violent nature of the deaths of these persons". The Investigative Committee
opened a murder inquiry into Browder's business partners Oktai Gasanov, Valeriy Kurochkin and
Sergei Korobyenikov. Browder is a suspect as regards the elimination of financier Alexander
Perepelichny, who died in 2012 in the British town of Weybridge (in the Russian immigrant's
stomach were found traces of Asian poisonous plant Gelsemium elegans). According to Atmen'ev,
the Prosecutor's office sent to the Investigative Committee notification of its decision that
an inquiry be opened as regards making a criminal case against Browder because of the
suspicion that he had been involved in the murder of Perepelichny. As for Magnitsky, who died
in 2009 at the hospital of the "Matrosskaya Tishina" remand centre, the Office of the
Prosecutor General believes that he was poisoned "as a diversion and by a chemical substance
consisting of aluminium compounds", which brought about the development of his cardio-hepatic
failure. "What Browder was especially interested in was that Sergei Magnitsky die so as to
avoid his being exposed", said Atmon'ev.
"Amongst the chemicals that pose a hidden threat to humans, there is a group of toxic
aluminium compounds. In Russia, there has not been an investigation targeted at these
substances. Detailed analysis of scientific information shows that for several decades
toxicological studies of aluminium compounds have been carried out previously and there
continues exclusive research into them by organizations in the the United States, France and
Italy. There has been studied particularly closely the acute and chronic toxicity of a number
of hazardous aluminium compounds that are ingested orally or inhaled and their effects on the
human body Analysis of substances obtained from the bodies of Kurochkin, Korobyenikov,
Gasanov and Magnitsky has led to the conclusion that the deceased persons had signs of
chronic poisoning with a toxic water-soluble aluminium compound that had been administered
orally", said a representative of the Office of the Russian Prosecutor, Mikhail
Alexandrov.
In the very near future, the Russian Federation will announce that Browder is on the
international wanted list under the UN Convention against transnational crime. "There is the
possibility of extradition provided for in the Convention, even in cases when between the
countries that decide the issue of extradition,there is no bilateral extradition Treaty",
said Atmon'ev.
They gotta be joking! Trust me! I'm as straight as they come!
RT keeps stating that Magnitsky was employed by Browder. I'm pretty sure he wasn't. He was
employed by an audit company, Firestone Duncan, that advised Browder in his shady,
tax-dodging operations.
Browder has always tried to make out that he was a pal of Magnitsky and how he grieved for
his fate.
Browder not once visited his "friend" Magnitsky when he was held on remand.
At least they have stopped calling Magnitsky a "lawyer".
Browder persisently called him a lawyer, though, in numerous interviews, when he must have
known damned well he was no such thing.
You'd think the British would have tried to sort out the taxation implications of Markly
Meg's marriage to Prince Harry BEFORE they got married. It's not as if this is the first time
someone in the British political establishment has been hit with this issue of being a US
citizen and therefore liable to pay tax to the IRS on income earned outside the US as well as
within the country.
Well, she could always do what Mr. Capitalism Bill Browder did, and renounce her American
citizenship. The US government has demonstrated on more than one occasion that, in his case,
it does not hold that against him although he plainly did it for tax reasons.
" Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that
renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service
obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more
information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to
avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed or may commit in the
future which violate United States law, or escape the repayment of financial obligations,
including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as
United States citizens abroad "
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Renunciation-US-Nationality-Abroad.html
They still get you even when you're no longer an American citizen.
Oh, bullshit. If a former American like, say, Bill Browder, murders somebody in England, the
USA is going to get nowhere demanding his extradition to be tried as a previous American
citizen for murder. What would be the use of renouncing one's citizenship as an American if
all American rules still apply to you?
I can see the US authorities going after you if you renounced your citizenship just to
escape child support or alimony, providing you have a job in your new country. But I don't
see how the USA could just access your bank account – in another country – and
drain off payments; doesn't sovereignty count for anything?
Presumably, as well, the USA is not going to get into a pissing contest with the British
Royal Family over what it claims as its share of Markle's newfound wealth.
Buffoon Boris of Bullingdon Club notoriety and British Foreign and Commonwealth Office
risability got whacked with a US tax bill because he too was a US citizen. He huffed and
puffed and said he would not pay and would renounce his being one of the Exceptional Nation.
In the end, he coughed up what he owed, but he still renounced his US citizenship.
I assume the passage I quoted is basically saying that renouncing US citizenship will not
automatically wipe out previous or outstanding unpaid tax liabilities, crimes committed in
the past in territories under US jurisdiction or future crimes in the same territories. So
even if the Markly One does renounce US citizenship, any income she receives individually or
jointly with her husband, including gifts, can still be subjected to taxation if she still
owes unpaid tax to the authorities.
Then that's probably reasonable – the United States could recover income from her up to
the amount she has outstanding in US taxes. Unless she has one of those
invisible-but-building student loans, such a sum would probably not amount to much. But the
way the law is worded suggests US citizenship is far more a curse than a gift, in that
renouncing it frees you from none of the responsibilities. It implies that American law
follows you around like a bridal train.
As part of their hissy fit over a Russian in charge of Interpol (a Russian whose brother is a
Ukrainian diplomat lol), Senators wants it so anyone whose name is put on a red notice by
Russia cannot be denied entry or asylum.
Reminds me of when Castro sent all the trash from Cuba to the United States once they made
a similar law.
That'd be awesome. Get the bunting and the confetti ready at O'Hare for the arrival of a
couple of hundred Pavlenskys, who will promptly nail their sacks to the parking lot of the 35
East Wacker Building, a Chicago landmark. Most appropriate. I think you will agree.
Just this morning (Monday 19 Nov) the Russian prosecutor's office opened a criminal case
against William Browder. He is accused of (1) organizing a criminal gang, (2) poisoning his
gang member Sergei Magnitsky, and (3) also killing several other members of the gang. It is
alleged that Browder used military-level "diversionary chemical substances" [whatever that
is] mixed to aluminium, to form the poison.
Browder denies the charges, and also points the finger at Major-General Alexander
Prokopchuk of the Russian Federation police. Prokopchuk is in the running to become head of
Interpol. Which, if he does, he said he will pursue Bill Browder to the ends of the earth,
and nowhere on this planet will it be safe for him any more.
Which is why Browder is worried about Prokopchuk's nomination.
Now we know why the UK staged the Skripal farce. It is a redirection attempt to make Browder
look like a victim. The fallout of Browder being convicted of using chemical weapons from
criminal purposes would make NATzO look bad since NATzO invested itself in his "victimhood"
and elevated the corrupt accountant Magnitsky into a human rights martyr saint.
I imagine they mean the poison was mixed with other substances to conceal the presence of the
poison itself, since he would certainly be autopsied if he died. And poisoning would
certainly explain his very sudden and rapid turn for the worse. But Browder never visited him
– neither did anyone from Hermitage Capital Management or Firestone Duncan, to the best
of my knowledge. Browder's story was always that Magnitsky was the sole employee left behind,
because he – Browder – had pulled everyone else out, for their safety. Who
administered the poison? And in what circumstances – Browder's story also was that
Magnitsky died from beatings and neglect, in that the prison authorities would not let anyone
bring him the medicine he needed for a known condition. In medicine would be the perfect way
to deliver a poison, but Browder's story was that he was denied medicine, and he'd surely be
suspicious of anything else, wouldn't he? Here, Sergey; brought you a nice meat pie, old man.
quite apart from the likelihood that prison authorities would not let non-family visitors
give him any food, since he was the prosecution's star witness.
Of all the fuckers who simply make up scurrilous crap about Russia and Russians, Browder
is the one I'd most like to see them get. My dream is that he would go to prison in Russia,
but we mustn't be greedy, and I think we all know that will never happen.
Could aluminium phosphide have been put into Magnitsky's cell in the form of tablets or
pellets mixed with water, supposedly to get rid of an insect or rat infestation?
Inhaling the compound is as dangerous as consuming it and inhalation could have caused his
fatal heart attack. Water would be an ideal way to transport the poison especially if it is
colourless in that medium.
Come to think of it, my earlier comment was unnecessarily complicated: the poison, if it had
been aluminium phosphide, only had to be given to Magnitsky in a glass of water when he got
thirsty.
Don't need exotic "made only in Russia" chemicals. AlP is not going to leave a trail back to
its source. And both Al and P are found in the body so forensic identification is not
trivial.
Anything is possible, but visitors to the state's star witness would be viewed with the
greatest suspicion if they were not family, you would think, as doubtless the state would
have stressed what a valuable prisoner he potentially was. I would imagine they would be
subjected to a pretty thorough scan and search. And there would be a record of all visits and
visitors. Anyone who was Russian and still living in Russia would doubtless be investigated.
Smoke billows across the battlefield, obscuring the armoured cars ahead of us. A Polish
soldier keels over, then another, and then another. Military hardware is no use here –
this is a chemical attack. Army ambulances race through the acrid fog to evacuate the
casualties. If you'd arrived here unawares, you'd never know this was just a drill – it
all feels frighteningly real. Welcome to Drawsko Pomorskie, the biggest military training
ground in Europe. And welcome to Anakonda 18, Poland's biggest Nato exercise.
Anakonda 18 features 17,500 soldiers from 10 Nato members: 12,500 here in Poland, plus
5,000 more in parallel exercises in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. It's no surprise that
these military exercises are happening here. This is the site of Nato's "Enhanced Forward
Presence": four combat-ready battlegroups, stationed in these four eastern European
countries, supporting the defence forces of each of these countries with over 4,000 foreign
troops. The multinational makeup of these battlegroups underlines the significance of Article
5 of Nato's founding treaty, which states that an armed attack against one of its members
constitutes an attack against them all.
I'd tagged along on a couple of these Nato exercises before, and though no two are
alike, one thing never changes: nobody mentions Vladimir Putin, but his malign influence is
everywhere. "Nato exercises are not directed against any country," reads the disclaimer in my
Nato press pack. "They are based on fictitious scenarios with fictitious adversaries." Yet
Putin is omnipresent, the ghost at every feast. A few years ago, he boasted that Russian
troops could be in five Nato capitals in two days. He was too coy to name them, but you can
be sure they included the capitals of Poland and the Baltic states.
However, the Russian threat isn't confined to conventional warfare, and Anakonda 18
bears this out. Putin's invasion of Crimea was overt, but Russian incursions into eastern
Ukraine have been more enigmatic – non-uniformed insurgents operating as so-called
"freedom fighters", what commentators in the Baltic states call "little green men".
Today's drill is preparation for this sort of threat: an improvised assault by covert
operatives using poison gas made from stolen fertilizer. Ukraine isn't a Nato member, so
Russia could occupy Crimea safe in the knowledge that Nato wouldn't be compelled to
retaliate. Here on Nato's eastern flank, Putin needs to be more canny. For Poland, Article 5
is a powerful insurance policy – but like the cyberwar that Russia has waged so
successfully in the Baltic states, there are many ways to destabilise a nation without making
an "armed attack".
And on and on it goes in like manner
Russia currently has soldiers in three countries – Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine
– without the consent of their governments .
Russian aggression along Europe's eastern border has given Nato a much-needed wake-up
call
Next year it'll be 20 years since Poland joined Nato, a real cause for celebration, but
as I headed for home it was the sober, sombre words of Anakonda 18's exercise commander,
Major General Tomasz Piotrowski, which stayed with me. He explained the purpose of the
exercise with the studied neutrality of the career soldier ("hybrid threats emerging along
the eastern flank of Nato and, of course, activation of Article 5 to conduct high intensity
warfare") but when I asked him about the background to this exercise, his comments were more
stark. He talked about cyber-attacks against Estonia, open warfare in Georgia and instability
in eastern Ukraine. He didn't mention Russia – he didn't need to. Everyone at this
press conference knew the name of the elephant in the room. As Nato's press office always
points out, Nato exercises are based on fictitious scenarios with fictitious adversaries.
Here's hoping these exercises are sufficient preparation if that fiction ever becomes
fact.
One comment so far:
The American journalist Paul Jay described, in an interview, meeting representatives of
western arms firms at the 2012 Munich security conference; although NATO, in breach of
undertakings given to Michael Gorbachov, that had expanded eastwards to Russia's borders,
they were in despair. Arms sales were still declining. Shortly afterwards, as boasted by
Victoria Nuland, the US spent four billion dollars 'influencing' Ukraine, leading to the
Maidan protests, the coup and a new government whose Prime Minister Nuland is on (audio)
record as having chosen. At least three new ministers were from the neo-fascist far right.
This led to protests and occupations, particularly in the east; the new far-right government
quickly sent armed troops to quell civil disturbances, leading to civil war.
The EU fact-finding mission on the conflict between Georgia and Russia (suppression of
local indigenous minority, suppression of local language, closure of native-language schools,
attacks on civilians, invasion of the territory and murder of UN-mandated Russian
peace-keeping troops) concluded that Georgia (led by Saakashvili) was to blame.
The far-right, in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary and Georgia,
with support from NATO and the American government, is on the march again in Eastern Europe.
These countries suppress languages other than their own, and continue to deny citizenship to
tens of millions of Russian-speakers who have lived in these countries for
generations.
This article ignores these inconvenient facts. Russia has not created this new cold
war. Printing propaganda pieces for NATO and the big arms companies is not an appropriate
role for an 'independent' newspaper.
The lunatics in NATzO are planning a war on Russia. That is why they are buttering up the
sheeple with transparent rubbish propaganda pieces. For some reason these lunatics believe
they will win the war. For the last 1000 years this has been a standard feature of western
decision making. But in every case they lose. Russia is much more prepared to take on NATzO
today than the USSR was prepared to take on the Nazis in 1940. In fact, in the nuclear
missile era, NATzO has no advantage over Russia whatsoever. There is no "blitzkrieg" that
NATzO could launch. It would be "blitzkrieg"ed in return.
But what I say is considered delusional inanity by YouTube snot nosed "experts". So
perhaps it is not surprising that the NATzO elites think the same way. Apples don't fall far
from trees.
"The most ominous US move is the recent decision to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with the former Soviet Union, which frees the Pentagon to build
up a new arsenal of short and medium-range nuclear missiles that will be targeted primarily
at China. The Pentagon's previous AirSea Battle strategy for war with China, involving a
massive conventional air and missile attack on the Chinese mainland from nearby bases, is now
being supplemented or replaced by plans for a devastating nuclear attack.
The Trump administration is setting course for a catastrophic war with China that will
inevitably involve the deaths of many millions, if not billions, of people. In founding the
Fourth International in 1938, on the eve of World War II, Leon Trotsky warned that humanity
faced only two alternatives: either socialism or barbarism. A new revolutionary
International, opposed to the treacherous Social Democratic and Stalinist leaderships, was
needed to mobilise and unite workers around the world to abolish capitalism and its outmoded
division of the world into rival nation states."
"Putin said on November 19 that Russia responded to the U.S. move by developing new
weapons that he said were capable of piercing any prospective missile shield. The Russian
leader had previously warned that the U.S. plan to withdraw from the INF Treaty could lead to
a new "arms race."
A USA nuclear first strike on China would have to guarantee eliminating almost 100% of
China's offensive nuclear delivery capabilities Including Chinese SSBNs. However as the
following article indicates, China's land based ballistic missile force including mobile
launch systems is already deployed throughout the vast Chinese interior in (possibly
shifting) locations that are far from trivial to detect and neutralize. Furthermore, 'You
close to me then me close to you'.
The missile flight time FROM China to Japan or Australia is how the encirclement door
swings both ways.
Not to mention that Russia need only announce it is selling its new technology to China.
America is maneuvering itself into a place where it cannot be confident any of its weapons
will reach their targets, while there is a strong possibility a retaliatory counter-strike
would kill millions of Americans.
The seabed section of Turkish Stream is complete; the last pipe was laid in place with mutual
direction from Putin and Erdogan. All that remains now is completion of the land section in
Turkey, pressure-testing and cleanup, and then Turkish Stream is ready to deliver gas.
I had a couple of close encounters with mind-blowing pieces of equipment some years back when
doing technical translation work – all the more interesting since I can barely change a
fuse. The gigantic pipe laying ?barge seems inadequate – is awesome. Thanks for that
video.
I think there's about three years left before the rest of the terms expire for all the judges Russia elected (including the one
from Russia).
I have no idea if the government actually values the ECHR, but they have a free excuse to leave if they desire. This is a court
with elected judges, and Russia's participation in it is already cut off.
I think Russia remains a participant in international institutions, despite how it is treated, in the hope that the current madness
will pass and things will go back to some approximation of the way they were instead of this constant agitation for war. It's
hard to walk away from organizations which took decades if not centuries to build, because once the door closes on you, you won't
be asked back. The west recognizes its mistake in ever letting Russia participate on an equal basis, and if it could ever get
rid of the Russian permanent-member UN veto, Washington at least would be over the moon with pleasure. The Russian veto has prevented
several opportunities for the USA to rampage and smash and regime-change as it loves to do, and once that restriction was gone
it could re-order the world to its heart's content. If Russia left voluntarily, the most it would ever be granted again would
be observer status.
Sanctions may have knocked as much as 6 percent off Russia's economy over the past four
years and the drag isn't likely to go away anytime soon.
A new study by Bloomberg Economics has found that the economy of the world's biggest
energy exporter is more than 10 percent smaller compared with what might have been expected
at the end of 2013, before the Crimea crisis triggered wave after wave of restrictions by the
U.S. and EU. While some of the blame falls on the slump in oil prices, sanctions are the
bigger culprit .
"The underperformance has been much bigger than crude alone can explain," wrote Scott
Johnson, an analyst at Bloomberg Economics in London. "Part of the gap is likely to
reflect the enduring impact of sanctions both imposed and threatened over the last five
years."..
They admit that part of the 6 percent gap could be attributed to other shocks, such as
the introduction of inflation targeting and a sell-off in emerging markets
####
More anal-cysts at the link & my extra emphasis not to mention more
qualifiers in the article too boot.
Timely 'proof' that USA still runs the world and can punish people? Hardly a surprise but
they could have also pointed to not so great EU economic performance and its effect, but what
would be the point in that? Is it a) keep the sanction up and Russia will collapse/change its
foreign policy etc.? b) no need for more far reaching sanctions that could lead to Boeing/ULA
being stranded etc.? c) filler and fluff? d) Bloomturd shilling for business after their
Supermicro debacle?
Again, what's the point? What's it trying to prove?
If anything, de-dollarization and accelerating ties with the growing Asia-Pacific region
is very good for Russia, even if there is some initial short term pain inflicted by others.
If I do have a problem with Russia, it is that it seems to be cautious and then reactionary
by nature – or is this more institutionally safe behavior?
I smell GDP growth shenanigans at GKS. Hellevig had a piece earlier that debunked the claim
of a 1.3% GDP growth in the first quarter of 2018 and estimated that it was closer to 6%. He
was a bit too optimistic but the point is that 1.5% annual GDP growth (roughly 6%/4years) is
falling through the cracks and likely deliberately.
I believe Putin introduced a misinformation campaign late in his first term in regards to
GDP growth in Russia to keep NATzO confused about Russia's resurgence. The CIA was not doing
a good job estimating the Russian GDP, so Putin could fake the numbers and NATzO
triumphalists would lap them up with glee. I think this policy was smart and actually worked.
That is why in 2014 Obama was certain the Russia's economy would collapse from the sanctions.
Read the articles in the NATzO MSM from 2014 and even through 2017 which assumed that massive
damage to Russia's economy was a given.
By keeping NATzO ignorant of Russia's actual potential, it could re-arm and regroup in
peace. I think it would have been bad for Russia if the events of 2014 happened in 2004. In
2004, the Russian defense industry physical plant was still in sad shape and collapsing. This
condition was basically rectified by 2014. And Russia was also able to deploy its new
hypersonic wunderwaffen. Anyone who thinks such machinations are tin foil hat nonsense does
not know the history leading up to WWII. The USSR managed to delay the attack of the Nazis by
2 years which allowed it to increase its military potential by 40% and to move defense
factories to the Urals.
Today Putin is pretending that NATzO sanctions are actually working when it is patently
obvious that they are not. This is ***physically*** apparent in Russia as import substitution
occurs on a massive scale. Since every dollar imports saved amounts to two dollars of
domestic production (one for local production and one for not exporting the dollar and
incurring a negative GDP accounting penalty) Russia's GDP growth should be over 4%. But you
would think that nothing was happening in terms of import substitution and that Russia's
economy was running cool and near recession. The employment statistics show that this is not
the reality. If the economy was near stagnation, the unemployment rate would go up. Low
unemployment occurs when the economy runs hot.
The way that Russia's GDP statistics are skewed is through the official CPI and PPI.
Nabiullina at the CBR claims that Russia is has serious inflationary instability. That is why
the prime rate is over three times the actual CPI (7.5% vs 2.3%). I have posted before why
there is no evidence of 1970s style South American inflation in Russia given the extremely
short lived inflation spike after the late 2014 ruble forex devaluation; the spike was
force-damped and did not have any recurring peaks after the initial one. Under real
inflationary conditions a 7.5% prime rate would do didley squat and, in fact, there is no
magic prime rate that controls the inflation. If it is set too high, the inflation actually
increases. Also, if Russia's economy was running cool there would not be any need for a 7.5%
rate since it would push the economy into a recession. So reality indicates that Russia's
economy is actually running hot and this has some inflationary pressure but also means that
1.3% GDP growth numbers are BS.
Today Putin is pretending that NATzO sanctions are actually working when it is patently
obvious that they are not.
I suspect that he is not the only one. There's a whole host of other sanctions that the
West has studiously avoided putting on Russia because of the damage that would be done to
itself, not to mention that it would always like to have a few extra sanctions to dangle
publicly/privately or both at will.
Vis the Bloomturd report, do they expect someone to pay for it? When you click on the link
to the 'report' you get:
The article you requested is only available for Bloomberg Professional Service
subscribers.
The article you requested is only available for Bloomberg Professional Service
subscribers.
####
Uh-huh. Who exactly is their target audience again?
"I believe Putin introduced a misinformation campaign late in his first term in regards to
GDP growth in Russia to keep NATzO confused about Russia's resurgence."
Well, you could be right with this , Kirill.
Belarus, Armenia ( near 10%) and Kyrgyzstan( countries with economies interlinked heavily
with Russia's of course) all had very strong growth in their economies in the last year.
Russia as the mother economy for those countries would be expected to have a lesser but still
significant growth figures like 3-4%.
Other things like improved health and rapidly improving crime statistics in Russia, plus
public spending could further support your theory ( nearly 60 trillion roubles for the next 3
years is allocated). On the other hand salaries going up is what is needed to substantiate
your theory.
Salaries are determined by what the market perceives. If the Russian government and CBR are
spreading a fake image of Russia's economic health, then that will have negative
consequences. The choice is between those negative consequences and the neo-Reich lunatics
who are openly baying for war on Russia.
GNP is undoubtedly a fairly crude indicator of the health of an economy- I am a little
surprised that both GNP and the size of FIRE are not routinely published. Here is an
interesting bar graph giving some detail as to how the Russian economy managed in
2015-2016
People like Andrei Martyanov (smoothieX12) argue that the (real) US economy is much smaller
than customarily claimed, whilst the Russian economy is much larger. I have copied the above
graph from a comment by smoothieX12 to his article http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/11/it-begins-to-sink-finally-but-too-late.html
Interesting. I would have thought there was much more growth in Russian agriculture than
that, but maybe some of the self-sufficiency efforts are still in their early stages, or
perhaps domestic sales are harder to track for effect. Anyway, it puts paid to the nonsense
that American sanctions are crushing the Russian economy.
This calls to mind Russia's deal with Iran, in which Russia will trade food, medicines and
what necessities Iran desires but which American-imposed sanctions make difficult to obtain,
for Iranian oil and gas which Russia will use domestically. Countries are reverting to the
barter system to nullify US sanctions in a way that does not use currency flow the USA might
try to interdict or confiscate. No actual money changes hands, so America can snoop on SWIFT
to its heart's content without seeing evidence of promising targets. Striking, too, is the
prevalence of real sympathy for Iran and an evident desire to help it with its problems. The
USA has apparently bitten off more than it can chew here, and several nations are openly
flouting its rules. If America cannot think of a way to come down hard on them, their example
may become contagious.
Norway and Finland have accused Russia of causing GPS malfunction that ocurred during the latest NATO arsing around close to Russian
frontiers.
No evidence given, mind.
"Norway has determined that Russia was responsible for jamming GPS signals in the Kola Peninsula" said a Nato spokesman.
Then the Norwegian Ministry of Defence stated that had traced the source of jamming that ocurred in Norway and Finnish Lapland
"to a Russian military base on the Kola Peninsula".
So then the Finnish prime minister joined in with the condemnation, whilst at the same time conceding that the Norwegian authorities
were unlikely to present any proof, saying that there still was "every reason to trust them",
It's that old "very likely" mantra again! Loud accusations and nothing to back up the accusations.
I wonder when former Secretary of State for the USA Kerry is going to present evidence that he uneqivocally stated the US had
as regards the persons who were responsible for downing MH-17.
He started shouting his mouth off about this before the bodies of those who died as a result of that tragedy were even stiff.
Quite a bit like that stranded Russian secret submarine in Swedish waters, which was sending distress signals that the Swedes
or somebody in that neck of the woods was picking up. A great burst of alarms and outcries, no proof, nothing shown to the public,
silence and then forgetting. It'll be the same this time; it has become fashionable in western circles to accuse Russia of all
manner of aggression, and brings approval from Washington and Brussels. Hopefully Russia has a longer memory.
I wonder if they will tie the collision of the Norwegian frigate with the tanker to GPS jamming – they didn't know where they
were, poor dears. But warships use a gyro to navigate, not GPS. Still, fortune favours the bold.
The frigate Helge Ingstad and the oil tanker Sola collided near Bergen which, if I am not mistaken, has to be at least 2,300 km
away from the Kola Peninsula and any Russian military bases there.
Yes; Russian GPS jamming in this incident is beyond unlikely. I'm just being sarcastic. Like I said, it has become fashionable
to blame Russia for everything bad that happens, no matter how preposterous the case.
There's a captain who is all finished in the navy, even if he/she doesn't go to jail for incompetence. Responsibility stops
with the Captain no matter what happens because he is responsible overall for everything that happens in his ship, but in a congested
waterway with limited maneuverability, he would be on the bridge and in command. There will be no sloughing it off on a junior
officer. And the part about turning on their AIS after the collision just makes it look like they were trying to cover up. What
a disaster.
Incidentally, if anyone was wondering why so little has been mentioned about the crew and suspected some political dimension
– congratulations. Four of five navigators aboard Helge Ingstad were women, and the Norwegian Armed Forces had barely gotten done
championing her as a stake in the heart of the patriarchy. Jeez; we just can't get away from it, can we?
In the Norwegian magazine, Armed Forces Forum No. 2 in 2017 it was stated that "Four out of five navigators on frigate KNM
Helge Ingstad are women".
"It is advantageous to have many women on board. It will be a natural thing and a completely different environment, which
I look at as positive," Lieutenant Iselin Emilie Jakobsen Ophus said. She is a navigation officer at KNM Helge Ingstad, according
to Defense Forum. In yet another politically correct nod, the text notes that: "The Navy receives a much higher number of women
after general conscription duty was introduced. Therefore, more women are also more motivated for further career opportunities
in the Armed Forces."
"There has always been a perception that the Armed Forces are characterized by a very masculine environment, and in many
ways it is true. It is mostly men in the Armed Forces, but it is important for me to show that you do not have to be 'one of the
guys' to assume a role in the Armed Forces. Finding one's place should not be at the expense of being a woman," said Ophus.
When more women are able to work together, it becomes easier to discover and to create a more balanced defense, the Armed
Forces Forum opined. "It is important that the integration of women should work in every aspect: from officers and constables,
to people," Ophus said, adding: "The most important thing for me is that my job makes sense because you work for something bigger
than yourself."
In the same magazine where the Norwegians boast about gender equality in their Navy, they also explained that they are looking
into every department of their Armed Forces to apply the same formula.
Gender would have had nothing to do with this accident; a woman can fuck up just as easily as a man and no more. But all that
bunk about it being 'important to be a woman, and not acting like one of the guys to find one's place aboard' is just that – bunk.
On board you are just a sailor and you have a job to do that does not require you to showcase your womanhood. Similarly, 'having
a lot of women on board' is no more 'advantageous' than having a lot of men. All that politically-correct bullshit looks very
unfortunate now.
The ship was not insured – I'm pretty sure you cannot get coverage for a warship, and lots of personal insurance policies have
a clause which states that if you die as a result of combat action in war you are not covered, something a lot of people do not
know – and will be a total loss. That loss will equal Norway's entire annual defense budget, according to this source. If you
watch the maritime center's radar recording, Helge Ingstad displayed no AIS identifier and was doing more than 17 knots just before
the collision. She appeared to intend to cross the tanker's bow, but if that was the intent it was beyond stupid because that
course would have taken her into the center of the passage where several other ships were on similar opposing courses.
It is important to note that input from the navigator in home waters would normally not be required, and navigating such a
well-traveled waterway would be an exercise in chart-reading and radar-picture management which would fall to the Officer of the
Watch regardless whether he/she is a navigator. But the Captain would normally be on the bridge when other marine traffic was
expected in close proximity, because mistakes happen.
"Traditional political blindness": Russia has responded to the adoption of the UN resolution on the Crimea
In the Crimea, the adoption of the UN resolution on alleged human rights violations on the peninsula has been condemned. In
the state Duma and the Federation Council, representatives of the region and local legislators are confident that the Ukraine,
which presented this document to be voted on, is trying to present to the world the best image of itself that it can,whilst thos
countries that support the position that the Ukraine has taken are displaying "political blindness". RT interlocutors stressed
that after the reunification with Russia, there had been created all the conditions for inhabitants of the peninsula regardless
of their ethnic or religious affiliation. The Commissioner for human rights in the republic, Lyudmila Lubina, had invited UN representatives
to visit the Crimea. They were convinced of the absence of violations. An earlier positive assessment of the situation in the
region had been given by independent delegations from the United States, Germany, Italy and other countries.
The Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, which is responsible for social, humanitarian and cultural issues, adopted
a resolution proposed by the Ukraine that condemns alleged violations of human rights on Crimea territory.
67 countries voted in support of the document, 26 against: 82 countries abstained. The number of countries that adhere to neutrality
in this matter has increased: in the year 2017 in a similar situation, 76 countries abstained and in 2016 -- 77.
The text of the resolution was made in Kiev. It reported on the "illegal establishment of Russian Federation laws, jurisdiction
and administration" in the region. According to the authors of the document, on the peninsula there is "increased pressure on
communities of religious minorities, including frequent police raids, threats and harassment against supporters of the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate and Protestant churches, mosques and Muslim religious schools, the Greek Catholics, the
Roman Catholics and "Jehovah's Witnesses", and the "groundless prosecution of dozens of peaceful Muslims for their alleged affiliation
to the Islamic organizations" was condemned
"Uncompromising war with Russia"
Deputy permanent representative of Russia to the UN, Gennady Kuzmin, commented on the content of the resolution, noting
the aggressiveness of the text presented by the Ukraine.
"The authors have tried hard to present the situation in the Crimea as a kind of armed conflict, using terms like "annexation",
and occupation". According to this terminology, the Ukraine for four years has been waging an uncompromising war against Russia.
But Russia has simply been part of this war: no one is going to quarrel with the Ukrainian people, who have the same blood ties.
To punish the population of the Crimea for its choice in favouring Russia will not succeed", he stressed.
The Russian diplomat also pointed out that the referendum on the reunification of the Crimea with Russia was carried out
strictly in accordance with international law.The inhabitants of the peninsula voted openly, expressing their desire "to live
without the new Ukrainian idol: Bandera, Shukhevych and other Nazi collaborators" and to defend their right to education in and
to speak freely in their native language: Russian, Ukrainian or Crimean Tatar.
"No oppression. None"
In the Crimea there is outrage over the text of the resolution. Representatives of the region in the Federation Council
and the state Duma emphasize that the situation on the peninsula does not correspond to what is set out in the document.
"There is neither oppression of religious minorities nor raids, arrests and persecution as regards freedom of speech and
freedom of religion. Moreover, all conditions have been created to meet the needs of all religious communities", said Sergey Tsekov,
a member of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs of the Republic of the Crimea in an interview with RT
The violations that were noted in the UN resolution have been created by the Ukraine, the "illusion of non-existent human
rights abuses in the Crimea", said Vice-Premier of the Crimean government, Dmitry Polonsky.
"That political blindness has become a tradition for nearly 70 states (those that voted for the resolution. -- RT) does
not surprise anyone. This disease does not allow them to see the amazing extent of human rights violations in the Ukraine, which
already for several years has been waging war against its own people on the territory of the Donbass", said the Crimean government
representative.
Sadly, international institutions don't really matter any more, since the ridiculous obeisance you have to show to gain their
approval amounts to a complete abrogation of sovereignty. In this the USA has managed its greatest success in Ukraine; Washington
chafes under the burden of upholding all the regulations it helped write in order to place hobbles on others, not itself, and
now finds it has little use for international law or international regulation. So it has created the conditions for its irrelevance.
Countries that pay their political figures high salaries to sit in the UN and bleat and blather are wasting their money; they
should just remove their representatives and bring them home, and teach them some useful trade.
Human rights evaluation by a popularity vote. What a joke! Give us real cases of abuse and not claims by Tatar clowns based outside
Crimea. All of the sudden Crimean Tatars are the most precious minority in the world. They have to be given everything they demand
or it is oppression. How come Canada's native population gets to rot on reservation ghettos and nobody cares? America ripped up
the last of the substantial treaties it had with the aboriginals during the 1960s and expropriated their lands. Last time I checked
2014 is not 1930 and nobody is in a rush to give the US aboriginals back their lands.
All of it is designed to irritate Russia, with a secondary function of reassuring Ukraine that the west is in its corner. That's
pretty good value for money, when you think about it – the Ukies will go on struggling for the price of a pat on the head, and
the west does not have to actually buy their stuff or support them beyond a couple of billion in emergency aid once a year or
so. But the whole effort is gaining next to no traction at all; I can't even remember the last time I saw Mustafa Dzemilev mugging
with the adults, looking like a little wrinkled kid dressed in his dad's clothes. Absent urgent entreaties from the Crimeans themselves,
it all just looks like harassment. The west just has to do something for the Two Minutes Hate.
"... Q says that Donald Trump was asked to run for the Presidency by a team of military generals and other assorted true patriots who have slowly and patiently coalesced behind the scenes, waiting for the right time to strike back against Cabal. Q says that President Trump and the Q team say a prayer to the departed spirit of JFK each and every day in the White House, to steel them for the battle against Cabal. Q says that John F. Kennedy Jr. was a close friend of Donald Trump, and either was killed by the Clintons to ensure Hillary's Senate seat, or faked his own death and is still alive, helping Trump and Team Q fight Cabal behind the scenes. Some believe he might even be Q himself. ..."
"... One of the remarkable things about the Q phenomenon is how it has reversed some of the beliefs and values that have long been held by conspiracy theorists. For example, ever since investigators during the Iran-Contra scandal found out about the REX-84 plan to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law in the event of a national emergency, people have worried that someday the government is going to round up all the patriots and stick them in a FEMA camp somewhere. (See the aforementioned William Cooper book for a typical presentation of this.) But now, with Q talking about military tribunals for the members of Cabal, many of the same people are applauding the idea of doing away with due process and Constitutional rights for those accused of a crime. ..."
"... Q supporters often point to the bizarre exchange between Lindsey Graham and Brett Kavanaugh during the latter's confirmation hearings. Graham made a point of establishing the legitimacy of such tribunals during times of war, noting that the United States has technically been at war since 9-11. This is seen as further evidence that Graham and Kavanaugh are both on Team Q and gearing up for "The Storm." Apparently Graham's years of shilling for the neocons' war agenda are just water under the bridge now. ..."
"... Then there is the last case that Kavanaugh presided over before his appointment to the Supreme Court by President Trump. That was the case of Morley vs. CIA , which was brought about by journalist Jefferson Morley, who discovered the identity of the aforementioned George Joannides back in the 1990s. Ever since that time, he has been fighting the CIA in court to try to get the records on Joannides, so that historians and researchers can try to piece together his role in the events surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination. In a 2-1 decision, Kavanaugh sided with the CIA against Morley in deciding that, when a litigant successfully sues the government for records through the Freedom of Information Act, the government is not liable to pay their legal costs. This "incentivizes the CIA and other agencies to abuse FOIA and discourages investigative reporting," because whereas the government has virtually unlimited resources to fight, stall, and stonewall in court, the average citizen journalist or investigator does not. ..."
"... Trump is probably no more motivated to expose deep state treasons from the past than Obama was to actually improve the lot of black people in America. They're both the political equivalent of pressure relief valves. ..."
"... Trump is a complete fraud, and Q's purpose is to keep the idiots who voted for Trump thinking "any day now, any day any day now " ..."
We are now at year 55 since the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. This defining event of the Baby Boomer generation
still looms large over the American nation, ever finding new ways to stay relevant to contemporary events.
There have been two significant developments during the Trump presidency. First was Trump's tweet in October 2017 saying that
he would declassify all the remaining JFK files that the government is still withholding. I and many others who are interested in
the JFK investigation were hopeful that this would happen, as I
wrote in March of that year. While Trump's
supporters cheered and took it as further confirmation of Trump's anti-establishment bona fides, the claim unfortunately turned out
to be false. More than 15,000 records remain withheld, including some of the most important records that researchers have been waiting
for, such as those on CIA man George Joannides.
Joannides, a mysterious figure whose identity was only discovered in the late 1990s, oversaw the agency's relationship with a
Cuban exile group that Lee Harvey Oswald was in contact with, and was then brought out of retirement in the 1970s in order to oversee
the CIA's relationship with the Congressional committee that had re-opened the JFK investigation. The Congressional investigators
were led to believe that Joannides was just a regular CIA employee with no relation to the events in question. When House Select
Committee on Assassinations chairman Robert Blakey finally found out, decades later, who Joannides really was, he admitted (to his
credit) that he was wrong to think that the CIA had cooperated with his investigation, and that he should have believed his investigators
like Gaeton Fonzi and Edward Lopez, who knew that the Agency was deceiving them, and tried to say so.
So we're still waiting for all the JFK files, and President Trump has not pushed the CIA to disclose them. But with a tweet and
a subsequent release of some previously classified material, most people have been convinced otherwise. Ask the average Trump supporter
whether or not Trump released all the JFK files and they will likely say that he has. This is because most of Trump's supporters,
even otherwise intelligent and skeptical people, are strongly inclined to believe most everything that he says, (must be that master
level persuasion) the same way that his detractors foolishly believe every negative story that the fake news media reports about
him, including the conspiracy theory that Russia "hacked" the 2016 election.
(One important finding – to my knowledge totally unreported in any mainstream source – is that the stolen DNC emails were transferred
at a speed far too fast
to have been done by outside hacking , whether by Russians across the sea or teenagers down the block. Instead they must have
been transferred onto a USB, by someone inside the DNC. Gee, I wonder who that could have been.)
But the biggest new story in the long tale of the JFK assassination and its cover-up is the emergence of Q.
With an ongoing series of posts on anonymous message boards known for being pro-Trump stomping grounds, Q – whoever he is or they
are – has created a grand conspiracy theory on par with that of Milton William Cooper's Behold a Pale Horse , or Chris Carter's
X-Files narrative (which I've always thought used material from Cooper).
The Q story holds that since President Kennedy's assassination, if not before, the United States has been under the control of
a shadowy entity which Q followers call "Cabal." Within Cabal are all the bad guys of all the great conspiracy theories of the past
hundred years, and more – the CIA, the Masons, the mafia, the black nobility, the Vatican, and even aliens. And they not only engineer
almost every significant event that happens in the political and social landscape, from elections to blockbuster movies to false
flag shootings, but they also commit the most heinous and unspeakable crimes, for the strangest of ritual and metaphysical reasons,
that you can imagine.
Q says that Donald Trump was asked to run for the Presidency by a team of military generals and other assorted true patriots who
have slowly and patiently coalesced behind the scenes, waiting for the right time to strike back against Cabal. Q says that President
Trump and the Q team say a prayer to the departed spirit of JFK each and every day in the White House, to steel them for the battle
against Cabal. Q says that John F. Kennedy Jr. was a close friend of Donald Trump, and either was killed by the Clintons to ensure
Hillary's Senate seat, or faked his own death and is still alive, helping Trump and Team Q fight Cabal behind the scenes. Some believe
he might even be Q himself.
What a great story! Where is Chris Carter to turn this into a tv show? (Arkhaven Comics is already turning it into a
comic book .) But then, times have changed, and one could
argue that there is no need to turn it into a show, because it is already a show that we are watching in real time and following
on social media. This would make Jean Baudrillard's head explode, if he were still alive.
One of the remarkable things about the Q phenomenon is how it has reversed some of the beliefs and values that have long been
held by conspiracy theorists. For example, ever since investigators during the Iran-Contra scandal found out about the REX-84 plan
to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law in the event of a national emergency, people have worried that someday the government
is going to round up all the patriots and stick them in a FEMA camp somewhere. (See the aforementioned William Cooper book for a
typical presentation of this.) But now, with Q talking about military tribunals for the members of Cabal, many of the same people
are applauding the idea of doing away with due process and Constitutional rights for those accused of a crime.
Q supporters often point to the bizarre exchange between Lindsey Graham and Brett Kavanaugh during the latter's confirmation hearings.
Graham made a point of establishing the legitimacy of such tribunals during times of war, noting that the United States has technically
been at war since 9-11. This is seen as further evidence that Graham and Kavanaugh are both on Team Q and gearing up for "The Storm."
Apparently Graham's years of shilling for the neocons' war agenda are just water under the bridge now.
Kavanaugh likewise has been hailed by Trump and Q supporters as another fighter in the battle against Cabal. I'm inclined to believe
that the sexual assault charges against Kavanaugh were false, especially because Blasey Ford's testimony was so obviously constructed
for maximum emotional effect and minimal legal accountability for perjury. (I'm also inclined to believe that Kavanaugh's innocuous
explanations of the various terms in his yearbook were bullshit. The only thing teenage boys like more than beer is sex.) But much
more important than any of that is the fact that Kavanaugh is alleged to have helped cover up the likely murder of Vince Foster when
he worked for Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton in the 1990s. A witness in the Foster case, Patrick Knowlton, recently recounted
his experience with Kavanaugh during that investigation on
Ed Opperman's podcast . So how does Kavanaugh go from covering for the Clintons to being on team Lock-Her-Up?
Then there is the last case that Kavanaugh presided over before his appointment to the Supreme Court by President Trump. That
was the case of Morley vs. CIA , which was brought about by journalist Jefferson Morley, who discovered the identity of the
aforementioned George Joannides back in the 1990s. Ever since that time, he has been fighting the CIA in court to try to get the
records on Joannides, so that historians and researchers can try to piece together his role in the events surrounding Lee Harvey
Oswald and the JFK assassination. In a 2-1 decision, Kavanaugh sided with the CIA against Morley in deciding that, when a litigant
successfully sues the government for records through the Freedom of Information Act, the government is not liable to pay their legal
costs. This "incentivizes the
CIA and other agencies to abuse FOIA and discourages investigative reporting," because whereas the government has virtually unlimited
resources to fight, stall, and stonewall in court, the average citizen journalist or investigator does not.
I can't take a position on whether or not Q is "real," i.e. someone actually connected to the President, simply because I have
no way of knowing. The "Q proofs" that supporters offer up are not proofs at all, but some of them do indeed seem to defy explanation.
But what is more significant is that President Trump is clearly in on the game. And what is even more significant is that the mainstream
media, while publishing article after article about how stupid the Q theory is and how dangerous the Q followers are, never acknowledge
Trump's obvious acceptance of it, nor ask him to do anything about it.
The Q phenomenon could be killed in an instant, in a very simple way. All President Trump has to do is tweet: "Q is not real.
It's not anyone connected to me." Boom. Done. But he hasn't done that, or anything like it, such as having a friendly journalist
pitch the question to him. For whatever reason, he wants Q to continue. Why? And why is the media scared to ask him about it, especially
if they're so sure that it's just a larp, but nonetheless oh so very dangerous?
At least some of the benefit for Trump is obvious. The Q narrative paints him as perhaps the greatest President in American history,
selflessly devoted to battling evil in the name of truth, justice, and the American way. Just like how many people think of JFK.
Except that, whereas JFK is supposed to have been killed by the military-industrial complex, we're now supposed to be rooting for
the military-industrial complex as the good guys, fighting against the shadowy and nefarious Cabal. The plot has shifted from
Seven Days in May to G.I. Joe vs. Cobra . Trump, JFK, and the Deep State: Part Q, by Jack Ravenwood - The Unz Review
I don't think that President Trump would continue to subtly encourage the Q phenomenon just for the ego boost, or for the few
thousand extra votes it gets him. But I could be wrong – stranger things have happened in American politics.
We may yet learn the truth about who or what is behind Q. For those of us who believe that the prince of this world is the father
of lies, it's not impossible to believe that there are rich and powerful people who are as evil as Q says they are. And it's difficult
not to hope, in some part of your mind, that Trump really is what Q supporters believe him to be, and that The Storm really is going
to round up all those "bad, bad people" that Trump called out during his campaign. But I'm not holding my breath, just like I'm not
holding it waiting for the rest of those files.
I suspect, rather, that Q will disappear when the people behind him deem the time to be right, and no explanations will be forthcoming.
Competing theories will emerge – it was a psyop, it was just an elaborate hoax, it was Trump himself, it really was JFK Jr.! – and
researchers and historians will debate the minutiae, talking about how these pieces of evidence point to this conclusion,
but these other pieces of evidence point to that conclusion. And the question of Who Was Q? will take its place alongside
that other historical mystery that I'm sure I and others will still be writing and wondering about five, ten, twenty years from now,
and beyond: Who Killed JFK?
Trump is probably no more motivated to expose deep state treasons from the past than Obama was to actually improve the lot of
black people in America.
They're both the political equivalent of pressure relief valves.
Of course, I hope I'm wrong.
Trump, JFK, and the Deep State: Part Q, by Jack Ravenwood - The Unz Review
"In the US, the Trump administration has designated Russia and China, two nuclear-armed
powers, as "strategic competitors," declaring that "great power competition" not terrorism is
the primary focus of US national security. It has scrapped the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) treaty in order to prepare for war against Russia and China while in France
President Macron has called for the building of a European army to confront not only Russia
and China but if necessary the United States.
These and many other warning signs -- not least the creation of innumerable flashpoints
from the Middle East, Eastern Europe, the South China Sea to North East-East Asia -- point to
the acute danger of the eruption of World War III, which would assume a nuclear dimension
from its very outset.
This clear and present danger is rooted in the fundamental problem that now confronts
mankind: how to free the vast productive forces which its labour has created from the
destructive grip of capitalist social relations based on private ownership of the means of
production and the division of the world into rival nation states and imperialist great
powers.
But as Marx once explained, no great historical problem ever arises without at the same
time the material conditions also arising for its solution. And as the devastation of World
War I was unleashed, that solution emerged in the form of the Russian Revolution of October
1917, the first successful conquest of power by the working class. The perspective that
animated Lenin and Trotsky, the leaders of that revolution, was that the toppling of Tsarism
in Russia was to be the opening shot of the world socialist revolution.
The war, they insisted, arising from the breakdown of the capitalist system, signified the
dawning of a new epoch in mankind's historical development: an epoch of wars and revolutions.
"A permanent revolution versus a permanent slaughter: that is the struggle, in which the
stake is the future of man," Trotsky wrote."
Just to clarify the ideological point:
When Trotsky wrote of "permanent revolution" he was not talking about revolutions happening
every day of the year. What he meant was along the lines of Lenin's "April Theses", namely,
that when the revolution DID happen, then it should continue past the bourgeois phase and
onto the phase where government passed to the Soviets.
People get this point wrong quite a lot and use it to slander Trotsky as some kind of
"mongerer" of never-ending unrest.
As for the "permanent slaughter", I think Trotsky was just being dramatic here, and
pointing out that if the proletarian revolution doesn't succeed, then the world is in for a
lot of wars. Which turned out to be quite true, in our own era.
Vesti News
Published on 19 Nov 2018
Subscribe to Vesti News
Since Monday, we've been watching Poroshenko's panic. On the one hand, he was throwing rude
tantrums because his project to create a "new Church of Ukraine" didn't go as planned. He
only managed to create a branch of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Kiev, which is not the
division-building thing Poroshenko dreamed of. On the other hand, Ukraine, where it's already
snowing, isn't ready for winter.
My suspicion then that Poroshenko must have intended for this new Church of Ukraine to be
subservient to Kiev so that all its properties could be declared state properties and the
Church's wealth could be Kiev's (and Poroshenko's) for the taking only increased when I saw
this report. Interesting too that Poroshenko only now, near the end of his Presidency, is
selling off the assets he should have sold off at the start of his Presidency in compliance
with Ukrainian law.
Gee; who could ever have imagined such a thing would happen? Russia should handle any
emerging crisis very carefully, because Kiev will want to find a way to blame all Ukraine's
problems on Russia, as usual. Russia might win quite a few allies if it boxes clever.
No need to write Poroshenko's epitaph just yet; he's only sold off a ratty old shipyard
that likely was not making him any money anyway. That's not a bellwether of panic; not yet.
But he is almost certain to lose to Tymoshenko, and she will be a double whammy for Ukraine
because she has no more idea how to solve the problem than does Poroshenko, is steadfastly
loyal to the west although it has done nothing since the glorious Maidan but mess Ukraine up
even more than it already was, with the added bonus that she will probably usher in a
circuses-but-no-bread distraction of gunning for Poroshenko and his government, using the
premise that they are to blame for Ukraine's disintegration. That's broadly true, but
Tymoshenko has no plan at all for what comes after Ukrainians' fury is sated.
"On Nov.14, just a day before the decision to cut assistance, the European Parliament
overwhelmingly passed a nonbinding resolution saying Moldova has become a "state captured by
oligarchic interests" that exert their influence over most parts of Moldova's society. The
country is actually ruled by a small group of tycoons."
Ukraine is actually ruled by a small group of tycoons; according to the European Council
on Foreign Relations (which wants Ukraine to succeed as a western satellite, so you can bet
anything negative about it will be soft-pedaled), the 50 5ichest Ukrainians pre-maidan
controlled 45% of national GDP.
Anyone want to present the case that the situation has improved since its oligarchic
president took power, and used it to continuously enrich himself and his family, maintaining
his status as a wealthy businessman even as he takes the odd moment out now and again to see
how the country's doing? I thought not.
Last year, after the country has had quite a generous spell to throw off the shackles of
its oligarchy, the top FIVE Ukrainian oligarchs alone control 13% of the nation's GDP –
Rinat Akhmetov, Ihor Kolomoyskiy, Victor Pinchuk, Petro Poroshenko and Dmytro Firtash.
Waiting in the wings to take over the helm, Yulia Tymoshenko, once known as 'the Gas
Princess", and another oligarch who has been rich since she was very young, whose past
performance suggests Ukraine is in for another round of nest-feathering and struggle for
financial gain among its wealthy citizens, with not a toss given for the rest.
Think we'll see the EU cut them off from funding any time soon? Me, either.
TheRealNews
Published on 14 Nov 2018
The latest revelation about Brazil's slow motion coup, designed to ensure that the
center-left remains out of power and the far-right takes control, involves a general who
admitted that he threatened the Supreme Court so it would imprison presidential front-runner
Lula da Silva. We discuss the development with Brian Mier
On Thanksgiving eve some Russian oppositionists decided to personally thank the US authorities for the sanctions against
Russia. They met them in Washington, but instead of the traditional turkey, the guests offered senators and State Department
officials to check out their lists of Russians who deserve to be sanctioned.
The New Times has dodged almost certain closure this week by crowdfunding some 25 million
rubles to pay off a government fine after an unprecedented show of support.
The online magazine was handed a crippling fine in late October by the Russian media
watchdog Roskomnadzor for failing to disclose foreign financing.
"Russian people are very sensitive to injustice, we are a nation of survivors", the
magazine's chief editor Yevgenia Albats said.
So despite the fact that nobody reads it, 20 thousand people, according to another Western
organ that nobody reads (see link below), stumped up the dosh for Albat's electronic rag.
Probably from the same place that funds her publication and which she hasn't revealed for
the past 2 years, something that she legally has to, her electronic publication being classed
as an NGO.
That's why she got whacked with a fine.
Political persecution, I call it!
Off to the ECHR with you, Yevgenia! You know they'll find in your favour.
The UK – and the wider world – is perfectly comfortable with far-right
nationalist groups in Ukraine which pursue a Nazi ideology. Ukraine, after all, is snuggled
right up against Russia, and such groups can be reliably expected to agitate against Russia.
Since Russia is the enemy, they can be said to be a sort of weapon of the west. But you start
to get less comfortable with the existence of such weapons when they are loose in your own
country, and might harm voters.
The odd and disturbing part of the BBC article is that the young fellow (Adam Thomas)
standing between the swastika flag and the woman in Picture 4 actually tried to convert to
Judaism, and went to Israel and studied at a yeshiva (Jewish theological college) to do so.
His objective was apparently to join a fundamentalist Jewish sect, of the type associated
with young born-again North American and British Jewish people who then migrate to Israel and
make up a considerable portion of the settler movement in that country. He was exposed to
neo-Nazi beliefs from his stepfather as a child and he seems clearly attracted to apocalyptic
cult belief systems. I think Thomas will always have that internal struggle of being drawn to
ideologies that advocate a clean sweep and purge of humanity through constant war, violence
and bloodshed so that humans can start all over again with a clean slate; yet he will be
dissatisfied when eventually he comes to realise that whatever extremist ideology he attaches
himself to, it will be full of contradictions and compromises. He may then conclude that
humanity itself is worthless and that'll be when he really becomes dangerous.
That complete misunderstanding the situation. The US officials might resent far right groups
but the goal of encircling of Russia is of paramount importance and outwight all other
considerations. In other word hostile to Russia Ukraine is the greatest US geopolitical victory
after dissolution of the USSR in 1991.
"Last weekend saw Ukraine's biggest Nazi march of modern times. Yet, the Western media and
its numerous correspondents in Kiev completely ignored the story, even on social networks.
On Saturday night, up to 20,000 far-right radicals honored the 75th anniversary of the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – a paramilitary group led by Stepan Bandera, which
actively collaborated with Hitler's Germany. They brandished lit torches, smoke pellets, and
flares as they chanted fascist slogans. And some participants openly gave Nazi salutes during
the rally."
– Viva Kagans clan. Viva the ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center; your efforts at
promoting the Nazi revival in Ukraine have been bringing great results, including the "biggest
Nazi march of modern times."
The State Dept. humanitarians, inspired by Clinton, and the totally zionized National
Endowment for Democracy (and other banderite Chalupas) are undoubtedly elated with the
"democracy on the march" in Ukraine (remember the $5 billion spent by the US in Ukraine
to spearhead the regime change in Kiev ) https://www.rt.com/news/444538-five-years-on-from-euromaidan/
"Ukraine is emerging as Europe's poorest country In fact, according to a recent Credit
Suisse report, Ukrainians rank among the world's poorest people , coming a dismal 123rd
out of 140 countries, with the net wealth of the country's citizens lagging behind Bangladesh
and Cameroon. Another recent study by the United Nations Development Program found that,
despite continuing economic growth, 60 percent of Ukrainians live below the poverty line."
American foreign aid is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (the Symington Amendment) or refuses to abide by
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess
what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American foreign aid.
This prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their agents of a foreign
government with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its American
Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of
American law..
There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy wonks.
infecting the U S government who hold dual citizenship with Israel. Such dual citizenship
must be strictly prohibited. Refusal to renounce foreign citizenship should result in
immediate deportation with permanent loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders
of "dual citizenship" should never be allowed to serve in any American governmental
capacity.
In addition, any American citizen who serves or has served in Israel's military (Israel
Defense Forces) should automatically lose their American citizenship and be immediately
deported to Israel.
When Netanyahu addressed both houses of Congress, it was sickening to see our politicians
slobber all over themselves to see who would be the most rabid admirer of that foreign head
of state. The almost constant applause by our Congress was reminiscent of the Soviet
Politburo in which no one wanted to be the last person to stop clapping. Just who do they
work for? Certainly not for the interests of the United States.
Anyone can see that the USA is the only 'real' friend of Israel in the world.
But the USA is not a friend, as I heard long ago a USA politician say on tv, on jews in the
USA 'we do not love them, w're afraid of them'.
Any USA politcian who openly opposes Israel is without a job.
This is, in my opinion, what jewry does not realise, their power over the USA can disappear
overnight, could even become open hatred of jews.
These jewish organisations, with media controlled by jews, and politicians who accept the
inevitable, for money or not for money, just something like the Hoover Dam: one earthquake,
and their power over the USA is gone.
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole west,
I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
However, in many history books one finds sentences as 'and then something happened that
nobody foresaw, but had grave consequences'.
Masha and the Bear is produced by a studio in Moscow
A programme about a mischievous girl and a bear watched by millions of British children
is accused of being a "soft propaganda" tool for the Kremlin (Mark Bridge writes). The
English-language Masha and the Bear has more than 4.18 million subscribers on YouTube and, in
various languages, the animated series has gained 40 billion views across 13
channels.
Children enjoy watching the feisty little girl and her gentle giant protector. However,
critics in Russia's neighbouring states have claimed the series, from a Moscow studio, is
part of the country's propaganda machine. Professor Anthony Glees, of the University of
Buckingham, an intelligence expert, said: "Masha is feisty, even rather nasty, but also
plucky. She punches above her slight weight. It's not far-fetched to to say that she's acting
like Putin".
As for the bear, the author recalled the position of the teacher of Tallinn University
Priit Khybemyagi, who stated that this character is intended to "change the image of Russia
in the minds of children from negative to positive." Khybemyagi considered this to be a
threat to n national security .
At the same time, the Lithuanian critics were confused by the USSR border guard cap
Masha wears in an episode where she is chasing a hare out of the bear's garden. They decided
that in this way Russia was demonstrating "the defence of its border".
From the most prestigious of British "quality" newspapers.
For your delight and delectation, Episode 58 of Masha and the Bear:
There is lots of yapping in the western and Russian MSM about slow growth in Russia and
"stagnation". This is all BS (motivated by posts on another board):
Canada ..0,14
France ..-1,8
Germany 0,2
Italy ..-0,2
Japan -0,4
UK ..0,0
USA 0,1
Note the non-existent industrial growth in the G7. So any GDP growth is due to the
so-called service sector which includes the financial industry. The trick is that debt
growth is counted as a positive in the GDP:
GDP = C + I + G + (Ex – Im)
where "C" equals spending by consumers, "I" equals investment by businesses, "G" equals
government spending and "(Ex – Im)" equals net exports, that is, the value of exports
minus imports.
There is no category for debt and foreign borrowing is considered a GDP increase. Domestic
debt increase is considered a positive contribution to "I". Only debt repayments are
considered a negative both domestically and to offshore lenders.
So G7 GDP "growth" is fluffed up with year on year debt growth. This is ludicrous
accounting. Real growth would be any benefit to the rest of the economy induced by debt
accumulation minus the debt accumulation. It is nonsensical to count the debt growth itself
as GDP growth.
I've lately been wondering about the economics of being a big tax haven like the UK. A place
like the Bahamas, I think benefits from it since there are so few citizens and it's easy to
bribe them, and it costs a lot less than paying taxes back home. But then you move on to
Panama, and the grey area starts. Someone is getting rich there, but the population of Panama
is a lot bigger than that of the Bahamas, and that population is not exactly rich. Does it
create bigger class divisions and also retards politics in terms of trying to develop their
own unique economy not dependent on servicing the rich foreign tax thieves?
Then you get to London and the UK, with their absolutely enormous population. Most of the
people outside of London will never see any of this money, and in London it creates a runaway
housing crisis as the best investment for laundered money is thought to be real estate.
Obviously there is investment in the local economy other than that, such as buying football
clubs and stores, but I don't think that money goes towards funding a pharma start-up or
buying stock in a local car company.
So it exacerbates inequality sure (London real estate is insane and out of reach of most
locals), and creates a parallel society in the countryside that never see these money, but
are the pros of having that money there and contributing to the economy outweigh these cons?
It would if the money were invested with a view of making a profit from a factory, but I
don't think that happens in this case. What do you think?
I think it is an extremely interesting discussion point; one that I would not venture into
without doing a bit of research, but right now I have to leave for work. It's definitely
something we could chew over for a bit, and I imagine Jen will have something for us on it.
Blatnoi, if you get hold of the Nicholas Shaxson book I mentioned before, I recall there's a
chapter that discusses the effect of being a tax haven has on the Channel Islands economy and
Jersey Island in particular. The money that ends up there is in the pockets of a very few
people who use it to buy and real estate as if it were shares on the stock market. The result
is what we Australians call a two-speed economy or a split economy, where one sub-economy
caters for the very rich (real estate agents specialising in luxury properties, lots of
luxury hotels and playgrounds, boutique shops and restaurants) and the other sub-economy is
hidden away, made up of local people who have to rent their homes because they can't afford
to buy their own homes, who have to hold down two or more jobs to survive and who supply the
staff for the hotels, shops and restaurants frequented by the rich. Eventually the local
people start disappearing to find better-paying jobs and the hotels, restaurants, etc start
bringing in foreign labour to replace them.
I certainly agree with you that a two-speed economy creates and exacerbates class
divisions, and moreover destroys not only local economies in the areas where it operates but
also local societies and cultures.
Aha I Googled "Shaxson", "economy" and "Jersey" and out of what Google threw at me, I
found this account by Bram Wanrooij of his time living in Jersey with his family for six
years:
An excerpt from Wanrooij's post:
".. I have never been so aware of wealth discrepancies as I have in Jersey. And that
says a lot, as I have lived in places like Kenya and Sudan when I was younger. Disparity is
on full display, in combination with a shameless promotion of greed and privilege. Range
Rovers wizz past you, their 4×4 engines sputtering out clouds of pollution, utterly
useless on a small island with a decent infrastructure and no real elevation to speak of. You
even see flashy sports cars; quite amusing when you consider the speed limit is 40 at most.
What are these people trying to prove?
The island caters to the very wealthy, especially reflected in everyday expenses and
housing and travel costs. Getting off the island becomes ever more impossible as your family
grows, with flights to England ridiculously expensive and ferries charging a small fortune
for carrying you across the channel. In this way, Jersey has quickly become a financial and
geographical prison for middle and low earners.
In the six years I've lived here, my family has had to move six times and every time we
had to rent a house which was slightly beyond our budget, even though both my wife and I are
hard workers with honest professions. I have seen qualified, talented people leave because of
this, a phenomenon which makes no sense, neither on a social, nor an economic level "
Comparisons between the Jersey-style financial two-speed economy and economies afflicted
with so-called Dutch disease (typically economies like Saudi Arabia and others dependent on
oil, gas and mineral exploitation) have been made. Characteristics of such economies are
outlined in detail at this link: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11977/oil/dutch-disease/
Thanks for the information! I still think that the money must make it to the country's
economy somehow, but if you've got a democracy and as a result of the money a disenfranchised
class, then you get things like votes for Brexit and 'populists'.
It's still hard for me to think that there is not benefit for the country to be a tax
haven, since so many places try to do it. Maybe the criminals who launder the money are very
enterprising and smart people, so there is a chance they will start a legitimate business as
well as buy expensive real estate is probably how the thinking goes.
My sister was living in a big Western city that has a huge problem with foreign capital
investment into real estate. No young people there can afford a house. She recently moved to
a much smaller city in the countryside with bad weather, but where she could afford a house
and a job was available in her field. But I don't think the issues were from foreign
investors only. Also the zoning rules are very restrictive and it leads to price increases
since it's so hard to build new houses that people want. Then again, this is probably due to
investor lobbying partly, since then house prices would go down and would not be that good of
an investment.
Countries do not seek to be tax havens because of perceived benefit to their populations, but
because their governments want to exercise a degree of control over the money supply. If your
enemy's money passes through a network of which you are a part, why, you can cut him off from
his money. That was the whole point of the west falling upon Cyprus, destroying it as a tax
haven – that they were going to disinherit the Russian wealthy overnight. It's always
Russians they're after, and anyone else who gets caught in the net is collateral damage.
Germany told the EU that Russian billionaires had about $26 Billion in Cyprus – more
than the total bailout package. It must have seemed like inspired genius to the Europeans
(and doubtless to Washington as well) to seize a chunk of the Russians' money and use it to
bail out an EU country. Well, as we now know, that's not what happened at all. The usual
fatuous argument – offered also, predictably, by the author of the cited piece –
is that Cyprus could be like Iceland, and a bit of tough love would be better for it in the
long run. Of course nobody was going to say that the plan would mostly wipe out Russian
wealth, while the rest of the world was free to go on using approved tax havens like London,
as they do now. The two situations are completely different, and if anyone needs proof, they
can take a look at how much Cyprus is like Iceland now.
It's still not clear to what extent Russians learned of the plan in advance and pulled
their money out, and how much Russian money was never actually there at all, a figment of
Germany's fevered imagination. I imagine the 'investigation' was done by 'journalists', as
seems to be de rigueur these days (when the actual investigative services just stay back at
the office plotting and planning and drinking coffee, and cite the work of 'journalists' in
their reports), but there's an obvious hole in the technique. Journalists are interested in
selling stories, and a story that nothing was discovered is boring. There is overwhelming
pressure to sensationalize.
I've lived on the outskirts of London for many years and what I've seen is the city becoming
increasingly hollowed out. You can walk around street after street at night and everywhere is
in darkness – the lights are out because no-one is home, not that evening, not ever.
London is permanently under construction; huge numbers of new buildings have gone up in
recent years – all of them beyond the purchasing power of most Londoners – and
huge numbers of those new buildings have been purchased off plan by overseas investors with
no intention or interest in living in them.
When the money moves in existing communities disintegrate, local councils seek to dump
those in social housing on other, less fashionable boroughs (thus exacerbating housing
problems in those areas) or even outside London so housing can be razed and the land sold to
developers, those renting in the private sector are priced out, local businesses close down
– their market has gone plus insane rent and rates increases etc etc. London used to
have a bit of a 'village' feel to it – distinct areas with settled communities,
traditional butcher-baker-candlestick maker high streets, a sense of community. All gone or
going.
When I was last in London in 2016, I was with my family. My children quickly realized then
that "papa" was one of a rare breed in the British capital and also the capital of England:
an Englishman!
We were living in Sussex Gardens, Paddington, which seems to be part of the Lebanon now.
Nothing against the Lebanesse, nor any of the other immigrants really, as long as they are
willing to adapt to the normalities of their host country: it is they, after all, who have
made the effort to live in the UK. However, it seemed rather strange to me walking along the
Edgeware Road towards Marble Arch and Hyde Park, passing on our way one Lebanese café
after another, outside of which their clients were puffing away at hookahs.
I should add that I am still rather fond of London -- "When a man is tired of London, he
is tired of life " and all that -- but that fondness of mine is ever waning following my very
infrequent visits to the place.
The London in which I lived from 1967-69 is very different to the London of today. For one
thing, in those days there was a race called "Cockneys" that lived in the East End. What's
left of them now is in Esssex, on a big reservation, I think: sort of like the Cherokee in
Oklahoma or wherever.
However, London oozes with history and hidden gems of interest, not to mention the
museums, parks, theatres etc.
To quote fully Doctor Johnson, which I partly have done above:
"Sir, when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that
life can afford".
And there's the rub, Samuel, old boy: there's now precious litle in London now that an
ordinary man or woman can afford!
When I worked in London 1989/90) it struck me as an agglomeration of medium sized towns, by
and large, the huge cultural centres apart. Where we rented, Lee (SE) socialising was done
normally in Blackheath. Our flat was about 500 yards from a major junction of the South
Circular and my memory seared with the experience of queuing for well over two hours to get
into Kent early morning on a Bank Holiday. Uptown nights out were a pain due to
transport.
When the first reports appeared (?in the Guardian) about people commuting from York to jobs
in London my mind went to a chat I'd had with my host's maid in Mexico City in 1982. She had
a 2.5 hours each way commute. For the ordinary inhabitants, London is probably the 4th World.
The multimillion-pound wrecks are evidence of a property culture in which the world's
richest people see British property as investments. One Hyde Park, a block of apartments in
Knightsbridge, is another example where more than half the flats are registered with the
council as empty or second homes.
Buying properties in hot-spot areas and leaving them empty – because you plan to trade
and sell them if and when the prices rocket up to levels you want – would be typical
behaviour of people who treat property portfolios like share portfolios. You want to be ready
to sell when the price is right so you don't move tenants into them. Getting rid of tenants
can be a hassle if you want to sell quickly.
Also buying property and deliberately leaving it to rot is a way of using it as a tax
shelter to minimise land and other taxes, lower your income or claim a tax rebate on losses
you make because you're forking out more in land taxes, council rates and other rates than
you are making on the property, depending on the taxation jurisdiction prevailing in the area
or country where you have bought the property.
Apparently, the U.S. authorities believe that by squeezing the corrupt Russian money out
of the Great Britain, they would force those corrupt rich Russians to return their money home
and remake the Russia as a modern Western nation with the rule of law and checks and
balances.
At least, that's what I have heard at anti-Putin forums. So -- and especially so in view
of your article -- that ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
But if that's indeed the idea -- I'm skeptical that it would work. Definitely, it sounds
alright, and if it were implemented, say, 30 years ago -- it might have sort of worked, by
preventing the corrupt Russians to move their assets abroad. Now, I think, they would just
move their fortunes into some other friendly jurisdiction outside of the reach of Uncle Sam
and Russia's authorities.
If getting at dirty money was that easy, I doubt that China would ever need to resort to
such a complex operation as the "Fox Hunt".
Much of the documentary is based on Nicholas Shaxson's book "Treasure Islands: Tax Havens
and the Men who stole the World" and he and some of his interviewees in the book are featured
in the documentary. http://treasureislands.org/
Thanks Mark for getting out this new post so quickly!
"... "Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people we personally dislike." ..."
"... "An Ideal Husband" ..."
"... "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said." ..."
"... "Everybody knows that the dice are loaded, ..."
"... Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed; ..."
"... Everybody knows that the war is over, ..."
"... Everybody knows the good guys lost: ..."
"... Everybody knows the fight was fixed, ..."
"... The poor stay poor, the rich get rich ..."
"... That's how it goes ..."
"... Everybody knows " ..."
"... "Everybody Knows" ..."
"... Because the rest of Europe is so corrupt, Britain had to pretend to be corrupt, too, or else it might not fit in ..."
"... "Brexit will free the UK to intensify its crackdown on dirty money sloshing through the City of London because the authorities will no longer have to win the approval of the rest of the EU." ..."
"... "Sigal P. Mandelker, a top American Treasury official in London to meet with her counterparts, said British banks could face "consequences" if they continued to carry out significant transactions on behalf of the 24 influential Russians sanctioned by Washington on Friday. The list includes the industrialists Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, along with Kirill Shamalov, who American officials have identified as President Vladimir V. Putin's son-in-law." ..."
"... Moreover, to secure the credit guarantees, Blavatnik and his Washington advisers have so far outmaneuvered a Goliath: BP-Amoco. The largest producer of oil and gas in the United States, the British-American giant is fighting to keep its interest in another rich Siberian field also coveted by Tyumen Oil. BP-Amoco contends that Tyumen's takeover tactics there are unfair and could jeopardize its $571 million investment, one of the largest by a western company in Russia. ..."
"... "It's not the bureaucracy, it's not the police, it's not the politics but what is corrupt is the financial capital." ..."
"... "It's absolutely true that the UK is one of the leading financial centres for the laundering of corrupt money from overseas, whether through the property market, luxury goods or other sectors The UK has been a prime location for stashing away illicitly gained wealth, as anti-money laundering systems are weak and sectors such as UK property represent a safe investment, as well as a place to hide corrupt money." ..."
"... The Panama Papers leak – with 11.5 million documents the the largest leak in history so far – has implicated many of Britain's biggest banks as well. HSBC, Coutts, and Rothschild were among the banks mentioned in the papers. Since the 1970s the Mossack Fonseca law firm set up over 3000 shell companies for the aforementioned banks. These shell companies allowed their clients to evade taxes, as well as allowing them to participate in criminal or corrupt activities. ..."
"When mores are sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable."
Uncle
Volodya
"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people we personally dislike." Oscar Wilde, from
"An Ideal Husband"
"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said." William F. Buckley Jr.
"Everybody knows that the dice are loaded,
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed;
Everybody knows that the war is over,
Everybody knows the good guys lost:
Everybody knows the fight was fixed,
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows "
Leonard Cohen, from
"Everybody Knows"
I wonder if you were as flabbergasted as I was to discover the sole reason Britain has not cracked down before now on
the flood of dirty money lapping its shores is because are you ready?
Because the rest of Europe is so corrupt,
Britain had to pretend to be corrupt, too, or else it might not fit in
!! I'm not even kidding;
read it for yourself
.
"Brexit will free the UK to intensify its crackdown on dirty money sloshing through the City of London because
the authorities will no longer have to win the approval of the rest of the EU."
The article is The Telegraph's 'Premium content', and so you can't see the rest of it without being a subscriber –
but for my part, I've seen enough. If that isn't the most goodie-goodie, self-serving teacher's-pet bullshit I've ever
heard, it would certainly be in the top five.
As I've queried elsewhere, if the rest of Europe is perfectly happy rooting in its corrupt sty, while Britain holds
its nose and plays at being the bad-ass so that the European hoodlums will accept it, what draws foreign robber-barons
to London with cash that they need laundered? Why don't they just go to Paris or Berlin? Can they not sense how
uncomfortable Britain is with money that was not honestly earned by the sweat of one's brow? Dear God, it makes me want
to scream.
Let's just dispense with the notion that Honest-John Bull yearns to boot out the rotten Russian oligarchs because of
a deep-seated aversion to dirty money, right now. In fact, Uncle Sam
told Britain back in
the spring
that it was going to have to cut the Russian oligarchs loose if it wants to have continued access to the
US market. And considering the arsehole Britain is making of itself in Europe, it doesn't actually have a lot of other
friends. What would happen to Britain without the coziness of the Special Friendship? Like The Eagles sang in "Already
Gone", it would have to eat its lunch all by itself.
"Sigal P. Mandelker, a top American Treasury official in London to meet with her counterparts, said British banks
could face "consequences" if they continued to carry out significant transactions on behalf of the 24 influential
Russians sanctioned by Washington on Friday. The list includes the industrialists Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg,
along with Kirill Shamalov, who American officials have identified as President Vladimir V. Putin's son-in-law."
So I guess if Britain is going to have to bury its face in the pillow while Uncle Sam rides it from behind like a
pile-driver, it might as well amuse itself – and everyone else – with the notion that showing the Russian rich the door
to the cold outside was all its own idea. Yes; 'course it was!
The welcome mat is still emphatically out for guys like Len Blavatnik, though,
the
richest man in Britain
, with an estimated fortune of £15 billion. Because he's from Odessa originally, and the last
time I looked, that was in Ukraine. Even when it was prodding Britain to impose sanctions against certain Ukrainian
oligarchs (never Poroshenko, of course, who is a 'tycoon', which is a different thing altogether), the USA made it clear
that sanctioning Ukrainians was meant to
pressure them to break with Viktor Yanukovich
, not to punish them. Mr. Blavatnik had a spot of bother when he was
accused of
working through his connections with TNK-BP oil company
in Russia to drive westerners – including Britons – out of
Russia in a dispute between TNK-BP and BP. You would think critics' attitude was a bit churlish, considering Mr.
Blavatnik had just donated £75 million to Oxford University, the largest single donation in its history and one
recognized publicly by the British Prime Minister. But Mr. Blavatnik knows how to spread money around; he is a patron
not only of Oxford, but of the British Museum, the Tate Modern, the Royal Opera House, the National Portrait Gallery and
the Museum of Modern Art. He is a personal friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, and a generous supporter of both US political
parties, although he leans heavily Republican. He could show up at a Royal Opera House performance of
Anna Karenina
with a human head in his lap and nobody would give it a second look.
Good thing they did not investigate far enough back to learn that Mr. Blavatnik outmaneuvered BP in an
almost-identical riposte back in the late 90's except then he
did it with the help of his
Washington advisers
.
Moreover, to secure the credit guarantees, Blavatnik and his Washington advisers have so far outmaneuvered a
Goliath: BP-Amoco. The largest producer of oil and gas in the United States, the British-American giant is fighting to
keep its interest in another rich Siberian field also coveted by Tyumen Oil. BP-Amoco contends that Tyumen's takeover
tactics there are unfair and could jeopardize its $571 million investment, one of the largest by a western company in
Russia.
Well, enough of that; we're not really here to talk about Mr. Blavatnik and his squeaky-clean money – we're here to
talk about the patently ridiculous announcement that Britain has an aversion to 'dirty money', and would have been much
more a scourge of fiscal dishonesty if it had not been held back by its corrupt European partners.
The well-established facts suggest that Britain how can I put this? A nice way to not be deliberately insulting would
be to say that London's financial centers do not discriminate against money based on its origins; there is no such thing
as dirty money, or clean money, there is just money; how's that? Or, to put it as the man who blew the whistle on the
Naples crime syndicate, the Camorra – Robert Saviano – did back in 2016, "
the
UK is the most corrupt place on earth
". Not a lot of gray area there, I think you'll agree.
"It's not the bureaucracy, it's not the police, it's not the politics but what is corrupt is the financial
capital."
His assessment was backed by Transparency International, the outfit the UK worships whenever it is ripping on Russia
for being an authoritarian hellhole ruled by an imp of Satan. The agency's own UK head of advocacy and research had no
argument with the allegation.
"It's absolutely true that the UK is one of the leading financial centres for the laundering of corrupt money
from overseas, whether through the property market, luxury goods or other sectors The UK has been a prime location for
stashing away illicitly gained wealth, as anti-money laundering systems are weak and sectors such as UK property
represent a safe investment, as well as a place to hide corrupt money."
All, all because the other European nations were mocking Britain for not being sufficiently corrupt, of course –
what's a country to do when its conscience says, "This is so wrong", while the rest of the gang chants, "Scrub!! Scrub!!
Launder that dirty money and pocket usurious profits, or you can't be in the club!!" As if.
Oh, but wait! We don't have complete agreement. The British Home Office – a term that, for me, always conjures an
image of a crackling fire in a cozy fireplace, perhaps with a dog snoozing on the rug – said only this year that it was
so darned proud that none other than, yes, Transparency International had ranked the UK the
8th least-corrupt country
in the world
!
How can those two realities co-exist?
Obviously, they cannot. I suggest the conundrum offers at least two considerations; one, the British Home Office has
an obvious interest in refuting any talk about the UK being a festering swamp of corruption. Two, Transparency
International cannot be relied upon to supply unbiased assessments so long as it is funded by,
among others
, the European
Commission and the UK's own Department of International Development. So you can consider their evaluations with the same
gravitas you might accord a similar opinion expressed by the paper boy, or whoever cuts your hair – interesting, but not
necessarily informed, and quite possibly influenced.
I'm sure most or all of you remember the "Panama Papers"; those who obtained the files gloated that the information
revealed was going to be curtains for Putin, as it exposed his nefarious financial dealings that made him the richest
person on earth. That turned out to be horseshit, as we have learned to expect – not because Putin would never do
anything bad, but because of the ideological nutjobbery of those who make such promises, as if wishing really hard would
make it true. Putin himself was not mentioned anywhere in the millions of documents, and attempts to link him to a few
Russian accounts that were said to be those of 'Putin's cronies' got no traction whatsoever.
However, the Mossack-Fonseca law firm's stolen files
did reveal some astonishing British
connections
, not least of which was the then-Prime-Minister of the UK's father, who used an offshore account to
evade British taxes. How do you guys feel about paying into his old-age pension now? But that was just a
relatively-amusing diversion. This was the real money shot:
The Panama Papers leak – with 11.5 million documents the the largest leak in history so far – has implicated many
of Britain's biggest banks as well. HSBC, Coutts, and Rothschild were among the banks mentioned in the papers. Since the
1970s the Mossack Fonseca law firm set up over 3000 shell companies for the aforementioned banks. These shell companies
allowed their clients to evade taxes, as well as allowing them to participate in criminal or corrupt activities.
Over 3000 shell companies set up,
since the 1970's
, to allow HSBC, Coutts, and Rothschild – among others –
to evade taxes and to engage in criminal or corrupt activities. Like money-laundering. Since the 1970's, which
mathematics bids me point out was at least 39 years ago. Kind of a long time to be striving for acceptance into the
Corruption Club, don't you think – what does a country have to do these days to receive its due acclaim?
Look; I don't know who Britain thinks it's fooling with that butter-wouldn't-melt-in-my-mouth wide-eyed innocence.
But chances are good that it is not the US Department of State from whom Britain takes its orders, couched as 'helpful
suggestions'. The hash the British government is making of Brexit, coupled with the US State Department's focus on
squeezing only Russian oligarchs out of the money trough, virtually guarantees the whole effort will rebound on Britain
in the worst kind of consequences.
Meanwhile, the fatuous premise that Britain was only pretending to walk the walk so that the mean kids in the gang
wouldn't beat it up for its lunch money is somewhere south of insulting.
"Languages across the world have unique phonemic systems."
Since we have the PC revisionist linguist engaging in libel smear again. Russian does not
have "th". Period. No amount of PC subjectivist relativism can contradict this fact.
Since DIFFERENT languages have UNIQUE phonemes it makes sense that their writing systems
would reflect this. So using the Latin alphabet in Polish results in the introduction of extra
symbols and non-Latin pronunciation of Latin letters. (Example: see if you can write out
Zagloba based on the way it is pronounced). Yet the resident "linguist" on this board keeps on
attacking anyone who points out that different alphabets serve different languages and runs
around claiming that the Latin alphabet is universal and can easily replace the Cyrillic
alphabet for Russians.
Since this clown loves putting words in my mouth, I understand that HUMAN language
morphology has universal aspects. For example, the most "primitive" languages are actually the
most complicated with all sorts of declension, tenses and ending structure. Old languages such
as Chinese and languages emerging from regions with a blending of different languages such as
English exhibit simplification where word order carries meaning and endings are lost together
with tenses. Chinese has no future and past tense. English has past and present. Russian is
also subject to a lot of different linguistic influences (e.g. Turkic) but has retained more
structure than English. I suppose this is because the British Isles were subject to ethnic
influxes (Saxons) that led to blending whereas Russia was a relatively more isolated even under
the Tatar-Mongol domination so there was less ethnic blending. Whereas for English 50% of the
vocabulary is French thanks to the Norman period, the influence of French on Russian via the
love of Russian elites for this language for over a century did not leave such a strong mark
(but it may have changed the tone of the language compared to Ukrainian and central European
Slavic languages).
Much more than fifty out of every hundred words in my mother tongue come from French and
through French from Greek and Latin. However, more than nine out of ten words that I speak in
my everyday life are from the Old English that my forefathers spoke, those men and women who
sailed across the stormy seas in their longships from their homeland over one thousand five
hundred years ago. All the words that I have just written are just such word not one of them
comes from Latin, French, Greek and so forth.
Vocabulary is very interesting in that it is often cumulative instead of displacing and
survives longer than grammar. So in English French derived words are used for meat at the
dinner table and original (old) words are used for the live animal (mutton-sheep, beef-cow,
pork-pig). Conjugation and declension are easier to lose since they are harder to learn.
The plural for "shoe" in my dialect is "shoen" and the plural for "child" is "childer" (cf.
Kind and Kinder in Modern German). And "nasty" meant "dirty/filthy" when I was
a child: "Tek that nasty shirt off!"
Also, the second person singular is still used by many in my old neck of the woods, though
its use now seems to be dying out amongst those much younger than I am who often wear US
baseball caps back-to-front.
When, in August 2017, I met up near my hometown with my old workmate of almost 40 years
ago, he said to me, "Nay, how ar't dooin'. It's good to see thi again. Tha' looks awreet!"
[Now, how art thou doing? It is good to see thee again. Thou looks all right. ]
It was good to hear the old talk again; utterances such as: "Ee wuz soot on wah wachin
foootbaw when ee fawed off!" (He was sitting on [the] wall watching football when he fell
off.)
Oi veh, Kirill, it never ends well when you venture into the realm of Linguistics. You are so
out of your depth that it just isn't funny any more.
For starters, please produce documentary proof that I, or anybody else, ever claimed that
Russia has the /th/ phoneme. Fact: Russian does not have this sound in its catalogue of
consonantal phonemes.
P.S. – Stooges, didn't I predict accurately that Kirill would resort to the winged
phrase "blood libel" -- well, he used the term "libel smear", but it's pretty much the same
thing. Kirill uses these terms whenever anybody challenges his grasp of basic facts. Instead
of just admitting that he made a factual error, and then getting on with his life. This guy
is a complete idiot, like I said before he doesn't even understand the basic difference
between phonemics and alphabets. He certainly never studied Scientific Linguistics, even at
the Freshman 101 level.
Now, I never actually claimed that Latin was a "universal" alphabet, that just something
that Kirill imagined I said, in one of his psychotic episodes.
But, now that he mentions it, Russian COULD actually be written okay in Latin. It's probably
not a good idea, but it is doable. This is called transliteration . For more
information about how Russian is "transliterated" into the Russian alphabet, say for purposes
of the Dewey Decimal system in English-language libraries, you can read more here about
the various systems in place.
Kirill is such an idiot that he probably doesn't realize, that any time a translators
translates, say, Dostoevsky or Tolstoy, they have to use such a system to transliterate
Russian names! And sometimes they even have to use diacritic marks! Which Kirill, in his
idiocy, considers to be a heresy! Egads!
P.S. – Kirill has also been informed, on numerous occasions, that the Cyrillic alphabet
itself sometimes resorts to diacritic marks – gasp! For example, the letters
ё and й .
Which it has every right to do, as a fairly decent alphabet.
But such counter-examples never trouble Kirill. He simply asserts even more strongly his
erroneous and ludicrous opinions, accuses the fact-checkers of "libels" and "smears", and
then sometimes even goes on to threaten them with sodomy and other forms of sexual
violence.
One could feel sorry for this clearly deranged individual, were it not for that latter
point.
P.P.S. – Quoting Kirill: "So using the Latin alphabet in Polish results in the
introduction of extra symbols and non-Latin pronunciation of Latin letters."
Otto, are you so deluded that you don't even realize how stupid that last phrase sounds to
a linguist?
Are you saying that Polish people don't even know how to pronounce their own language, since
it is written down in Latin letters? And what exactly is a proper "Latin" pronunciation of
Latin letters?
If we disregard the personal attacks, it's really an interesting discussion you are having
with Kirill because it gives an opportunity to learn new things (at least, new to me) when
you refute what he says.
About the proper "Latin" pronunciation of Latin letters, I don't know what exactly Kirill
had in mind since most European languages use Latin letters yet pronounce them differently.
My own interpretation is for example when Arabic is transliterated into the Latin alphabet, a
combination of letters "kh" is used to represent the sound "خ" (sounds like the Russian
"Х") , or "gh" to represent "غ". The sound "خ" exists in some European
languages (German "ch", kind of Spanish "j" ) but the adopted transliteration is "kh". So of
course Arabic speakers know how to pronounce their language when written down in Latin
letters, but I would think the "Latin" pronunciation of "kh" would remain a regular "k"? Or
does the fact that a language (whose original alphabet is not Latin) uses Latin letters
automatically adds the represented sound into the list of "proper Latin" pronunciation?
As regards the "proper pronunciation of Latin letters", I learnt "classical" Latin at school,
namely the Latin that Julius Caesar, Virgil, Ovid etc. spoke (at least in orations) and
wrote, whilst at church I sang in Mediaeval "Church Latin".
For example, "Ave Maria" (Hail Mary) in Church Latin is pronounced as ah-vay
mar-ee-yah , but in classical Latin as ah-way mar-ee-yah , and "Regina Coeli"
(Queen of Heaven) in Church Latin is re-dzh-aye-nah ch-ey-lee ["regina" as in
"vagina"], whereas in classical Latin it is reg-aye-nah kay-lee ["hard "g" and hard
"c", the latter as in "c*nt"!]
"Julius Caesar" in classical latin is pronounced you-lee-oos kie-zar .
And Julius Caesar said way-nee wee-dee week-ee -- Veni, vidi, vici!
Vade in pace! -- wah-day in pah-kay , classically said.
I remember my first Latin class too, we all burst out laughing when the teacher told us that
Yulius Kesar stamped his little foot and lisped: "Wenny Weedy Weekee!" Somehow that doesn't
sound so masculine, does it?
It reminds me of the righteous indignation of the main character in "Goodbye, Mr. Chips",
recounting the 'new pronunciation' for Latin which would see 'vicism' pronounced
"we-kiss-im".
Thanks, Nat, it is actually an interesting discussion, isn't it? Kirill makes it all too easy
to launch cheap shots at him, because he is so clueless when it comes Linguistics, and yet he
simply cannot resist making forays into this foreign territory. Like I said before, this feud
has been going on for quite a long time -- on Mark's blog -- sorry, Mark! -- but I trust it
provides education and entertainment for the hoi polloi!
The issue of alphabets should be actually a utilitarian matter, but people tend to get
emotional when talking about alphabets. Perhaps this is the "cultural" component of any
alphabet. Some people (Hint: religious Jews) even start to think of their alphabets as holy
relics given to them by God. (In which case, one would think that God could come up with a
system that included vowels!)
Bottom line: professional linguists agree, that people go on speaking their languages the
way these languages have evolved, without regard for the spelling. Hence, Kirill is being
completely ludicrous when he fusses that adopting the Latin alphabet should affect, in any
way, how people pronounce their own language. Like I said before, Kirill does not know the
difference between the phonetic and phonemic layers of human language; nor does he understand
the difference between spoken language and alphabets which encode spoken language.
For example, Czechs and Poles pronounce their Slavic languages just as they are, without
regard for the fact that these nations adopted the Latin alphabet. In theory, people could
just scrap all existing alphabets and invent a new one that could be used for all the
languages of the world. Such attempts have been
made , but are unlikely to succeed, because (A) people are attached to their alphabets as
cultural artifacts; and (B) most people, like Kirill, don't understand the difference between
phonetics and alphabets. This situation could be remedied, if Scientific Linguistics were to
be made a required subject in Middle School.
In truth, there is no reason to scrap an existing alphabet if it works well for the people
who speak that language. The Cyrillic alphabet works very well for Russian, although could
use some tweaking and reforms from time to time.
The Latin alphabet works well for the Czechs, their alphabet is virtually perfect in terms of
one-to-one correspondence between meaningful phoneme and alphabetic symbol.
The Polish alphabet is less perfect than Czech, because Polish scholars went the route of
doubling letters, for example writing the Slavic /sh/ phomene as sz instead of a
single letter with a diacritic. Perhaps because their printing presses at the time did not
have diacritics.
Using two letters to write a single consonantal phoneme makes the Polish words unnecessarily
long and adds informational redundancy. However, on the other hand, once one learns the
system, one can very easily learn to read and write Polish. This is why Polish children don't
need spelling bees!
I myself learned to read Polish in under an hour. I don't really speak Polish (I know a
very words and expressions, that's about it), but I can read the words in a text aloud with
reasonably correct pronunciation, simply because there is such a good correspondence between
phonemic catalogue and symbolic representation. On the other hand, it takes people years to
learn to read and write English, which has a horrible alphabet, and this is why American
children have to have spelling bees.
The rune "thorn" was still used in Early Middle English before finally having been replaced
by the digraph "th", hence the pseudo-archaic "Ye Olde " signs that one occasiionally sees.
And "thorn " is still used in modern Icelandic.
Trump does not have his own foreign policy. This is a typical neocon foreign policy.
Israel's support of headchoppers in Syria might eventually backfire... Even if Russia did not
take immediate revenge for provoked by Israeli pilots "friendly fire" incident, they do not
forget it.
Israel already has a ticking bomb within its borders in the form of antagonized and
radicalized Palestinian population, as well as growing radicalization of Israeli population
(reflected in a long rule of Likud, with Netanyahu as the leader ) and the huge military budget
(by-and-large paid by the USA taxpayers). Zionist experiment with the displacement of ingenious
population in a manner Anglo-Saxon settlers did in the past (Angozionism), did not work too well.
And Bible here is of little or no help. The key problem is that Arabs are not American Indians or
Australian aborigines. It is unclear how Israel can avoid the destiny of Rhodesia in a long run.
Moreover surrounded by hostile states Israel has such level of defense expenditures that ut did
not become a failed state yet only because of the USA financial and military support (Iraq war
also enriched Israel, which experienced financial difficulties at this time). As soon as the USA
support ends, Israel position in the region will gradually deteriorate and eventually it might
simply became yet another debt slave state like Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... Tehran views its influence in Iraq and Syria as vital to its national security ..."
"... the fact that a foreign government is telling them to give this up will be much more likely to confirm how important it is to keep it. ..."
"... Trying to coerce Iran's government into abandoning its pursuit of regional influence isn't going to work because the government places too much importance on it and it is willing to pay a significant price to ensure that it retains the influence it has gained ..."
Amir Handjani elaborates
on why Trump's Iran policy will fail on its own terms:
The Trump administration has just made the path to a diplomatic settlement with Tehran
much harder. It has badly miscalculated the resilience of the regime and its ability to
absorb punishment.
Handjani makes several important points that have often been overlooked in the debate over
the administration's Iran policy. First, he notes that " Tehran views its influence in Iraq
and Syria as vital to its national security ." If Iran sees retaining its influence in
these countries as vitally important for its security, that should tell us that they aren't
going to give up on it because of outside pressure. On the contrary, the fact that a
foreign government is telling them to give this up will be much more likely to confirm how
important it is to keep it.
The Iranian government's determination to hold to these policies can be seen from the fact
that they have continued them even when they were under much greater economic pressure:
The Islamic Republic has consistently demonstrated that it can do more with less and that
it will sacrifice butter for guns.
That conclusion is consistent with
this study of how the Iranian government has responded to sanctions in the past. Trying
to coerce Iran's government into abandoning its pursuit of regional influence isn't going to
work because the government places too much importance on it and it is willing to pay a
significant price to ensure that it retains the influence it has gained . Sanctions
usually don't succeed in compelling changes in regime behavior, and they are never successful
when the regime believes that its security and/or survival would be put at risk by yielding to
outside demands.
Iran sanctions can't achieve the administration's stated goals, and that is largely because
those goals are unrealistic and unreasonable.
This is long overdue for so many reasons, but the corruption is so pervasive that reform
is nigh impossible (which I'm sure will reassure certain hearts).
I've been rolling on the floor with uncontrollable laughter (between episodes of schizoid
lamentation) listening to Russophobes (e.g., David Sanger of the NYT) rant on in alarmism
about the perils of RUSSIAN COLLUSION, all the while ignoring the elephant from Israel
standing right next to their shoulders.
Seriously, who can coherently argue that any hazard to democracy posed by Russia's
election influence was remotely comparable to the interference of Israel and Britain? And why
should the latter 2′s intentions any more than the former's?
Israel's artificial 'war on terror' in the Middle East, has cost US taxpayers nearly $6 trillion and killed roughly half a million
human beings, and there's still no end in sight. source:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/news
Notable quotes:
"... But just as in the case of FDD, it is time to require AIPAC to register as what it really is: a foreign agent. As a registered agent, it will still be able to exercise First Amendment rights to defend Israel but it would not be able to be involved in lobbying on Capitol Hill and directing money to politicians who are described as pro-Israeli, as it does now. Its finances will be transparent and it will be perceived as an official advocate for Israel, not as an educational resource for what is happening in the Middle East. Hopefully, when AIPAC stops throwing money around, the politicians and media types will find another place to roost. ..."
"... National Security Advisor John Bolton recently received the "Defender of Israel" award from the Zionist Organization of America. ..."
"... one might suggest that the U.S. United Nations delegation, headed by Ambassador Nikki Haley, is directed by the Israeli government, particularly given events of last Friday whereby the U.S. voted against a motion condemning Israel's continued illegal occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, thereby recognizing for the first time Israel's sovereignty over the area. Whether Haley was speaking for herself or for the administration was characteristically unclear, but it hardly matters ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] . ..."
"Nikki Haley might be referred to as a useful idiot, as Lenin put it, but her consistent pattern of extreme loyalty in defense
of Israel marks her out as being particularly beholden to the Jewish state ..." Depending on what criteria one uses, there are between
200 and 600 groups in the United States that wholly or in part are dedicated to furthering the interests of Israel. The organizations
are both Jewish, like the Zionist Organization of America, and Christian Zionist to include John Hagee's Christians United for Israel,
but the funding of the Israel Lobby and both its political and media access comes overwhelmingly from Jewish supporters and advocates.
Many of the groups are registered with the Internal Revenue Service for tax purposes as 501(c)3 "educational" or "charitable"
foundations, which enables them to solicit tax exempt donations. One might dispute whether promoting Israeli interests in the United
States is actually educational, but as of right now the Department of the Treasury believes it can be so construed, protected by
the First Amendment.
But there is a more serious consideration in terms of the actual relationships that many of the groups enjoy with the Israeli
government. To be sure, many of them boast on their promotional literature and websites about their relationships with the Benjamin
Netanyahu and his cabinet, so the issue of dual loyalty or, worse, acting as actual Israeli government agents must be considered.
There is a legal remedy to hostile foreigners acting against American interests and that is the Foreign Agents Registration Act
of 1938 (FARA). Originally intended to identify and monitor agents of Nazi Germany propagandizing in the United States, it has since
been applied to individuals and groups linked to other nations. Most recently, it was used against Russian news agencies RT America
and Sputnik, which were forced to register. It is also being considered for Qatar based al-Jazeera.
FARA
requires
identified agents to be transparent in terms of their funding and contacts while also being publicly identified as representing
the interests of a foreign nation. They must report to the Department of Justice every contact they have with congressmen or other
government officials. The text of the Act defines a foreign agent as
"any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the
order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly
or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and
who directly or through any other person --
(i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal;
(ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political
consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal;
(iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of
value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or
(iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government
of the United States."
In spite of language that would presumably cover many of the hundreds of Jewish organizations acting for Israel, FARA has never
been used to compel registration of any such groups or individuals even when it was public knowledge that they were working closely
with the Israeli government to coordinate positions and promote other Israeli interests.
That failure is at a minimum a tribute to Jewish power in the United States, but it is also due to the fact that the organizations
are funded from within the United States by wealthy American Jews, not by Israel, which is the argument sometimes inaccurately
made by the groups
themselves
to demonstrate that they are not being directed by the Israeli government.
The difficulty in proving that one is directed by a foreign government has been definitively resolved regarding one group the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), which has become the leading neoconservative bastion seeking a war with Iran, Israel's
bête noir
. The recent al-Jazeera expose on the activities of the Israeli lobbies in both Britain and the United States,
which I wrote about last week
, included a surreptitiously
filmed conversation with Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former Israeli intelligence officer who now heads the Ministry of Strategic Affairs,
which is tasked with countering what is perceived to be anti-Israeli activity worldwide.
The Ministry is particularly focused on the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which is increasingly
active in both the United States and Europe.
Vaknin-Gil was discussing his activities with Tony Kleinfeld, an undercover investigative reporter who was secretly recording
and filming his encounters with various members of the Israel Lobby as well as of the Israeli government.Vaknin-Gil provided
explicit confirmation
that the FDD
works directly with the Israeli government, making it an Israeli agent by the definition of FARA.
For those who are unfamiliar with FDD, it is probably currently the most prominent neocon organization though it nevertheless
claims to be a non-partisan "research group." It focuses on foreign policy and security issues by "Fighting Terrorism and Promoting
Freedom," as it informs us on its
website
masthead.
It works to "defend free nations against their enemies," which frequently means in practice anyone whom Israel considers to be
hostile, most particularly Iran. FDD's Leadership Council has featured former CIA Director James Woolsey, Senator Joe Lieberman,
and Bill Kristol. Its Executive Director is Canadian import Mark Dubowitz, who is obsessed with Iran. Its advisors and experts are
mostly Jewish and most of its funding comes from Jewish oligarchs.
FDD's auditorium has become a preferred venue for senior officials of the Trump Administration to go and make hardline speeches,
just as the American Enterprise Institute was under George W. Bush. Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Nikki Haley have all
spoken there recently, frequently focusing on Iran and the threat that it allegedly constitutes.
FDD aside, Vaknin-Gil
also confirmed
that there were other groups in the United States doing the same sorts of things on behalf of Israel. He said "We have FDD. We
have others working on this," elaborating that FDD is "working on" projects for Israel including "data gathering, information analysis,
working on activist organizations, money trail."
So Vaknin-Gil was admitting that FDD and others were working as Israeli proxies, collecting information on U.S. citizens, spying
on legal organizations, and both planning and executing disinformation at Israeli direction. Kleinfeld also spoke with a Jonathan
Schanzer, a senior official in FDD, who filled in a bit more of what the foundation is up to in terms of discrediting groups in the
U.S. that support the BDS movement.
Schanzer admitted "BDS has taken everybody by surprise" before complaining that the Jewish response has been "a complete mess.
I don't think that anybody's doing a good job. We're not even doing a good job." He then complained that attempts to discredit Palestinian
groups by linking them to terrorist groups had failed, as also had the use of the label anti-Semitism. "Personally I think anti-Semitism
as a smear is not what it used to be."
So, when will the Justice Department move on FDD now that its true colors have been exposed by al-Jazeera? The group must be required
to register if justice be done, but will it? Its principal partner in crime the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
has avoided registering for more than sixty years by claiming that it is an American organization working to educate the U.S. public
about the all the good things connected to Israel. Even though it meets regularly with Israeli government officials, it claims not
to be representing Israeli interests.
But just as in the case of FDD, it is time to require AIPAC to register as what it really is: a foreign agent. As a registered
agent, it will still be able to exercise First Amendment rights to defend Israel but it would not be able to be involved in lobbying
on Capitol Hill and directing money to politicians who are described as pro-Israeli, as it does now. Its finances will be transparent
and it will be perceived as an official advocate for Israel, not as an educational resource for what is happening in the Middle East.
Hopefully, when AIPAC stops throwing money around, the politicians and media types will find another place to roost.
To be sure the lovefest for Israel in government extends far beyond FDD and AIPAC. It can be found in many dark corners.
National
Security Advisor John Bolton
recently received
the "Defender of Israel" award from the Zionist Organization of America.
And
one might suggest that
the U.S. United Nations delegation, headed by Ambassador Nikki Haley, is directed by the Israeli government, particularly given
events of last Friday
whereby the U.S. voted against a motion condemning Israel's continued illegal occupation of the Syrian
Golan Heights, thereby recognizing for the first time Israel's sovereignty over the area. Whether Haley was speaking for herself
or for the administration was characteristically unclear, but it hardly matters
.
Nikki Haley might be referred to as a useful idiot, as Lenin put it, but her consistent pattern of extreme loyalty in defense
of Israel marks her out as being particularly beholden to the Jewish state, which will no doubt arrange to richly reward her through
some position in financial services for which she is totally unqualified when she leaves her post in January. And then she will be
well funded to run for president in 2020.
Having Haley in charge, one might just as well vote for Benjamin Netanyahu.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O.
Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is
[email protected].
Trump is presently Israel's man in the Oval Office and if he should not be available or bets need to be hedged for 2020, nikki
likudnik is a sensible substitute.
After all (as Giraldi rightly points out), she appears to serve not as U.N. ambassador for her own country, but for the Jewish
State of Israel.
The only "deep end" is Trump allowing the United States to be controlled by and have its national interests subverted by a
tiny client state via the out-sized lobbying bucks of Israel-firsters like Sheldon Adelson and his cabal.
Giraldi has consistently made this point and its clear who is unhappy about it.
' In spite of language that would presumably cover many of the hundreds of Jewish organizations acting for Israel, FARA has
never been used to compel registration of any such groups or individuals even when it was public knowledge that they were working
closely with the Israeli government to coordinate positions and promote other Israeli interests '
I think you've failed to grasp that Israel is not subject to gentile law.
" . . . but it is also due to the fact that the organizations are funded from within the United States by wealthy American Jews,
not by Israel, which is the argument sometimes inaccurately made by the groups themselves to demonstrate that they are not being
directed by the Israeli government."
I am not sure given the scope of the references that it matters. it appears that anyone advocating for any foreign entity is
included.
"(i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (ii) acts
within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant
for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses
contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or (iv) within the United
States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States."
These "by the way, that includes" list makes it very clear what organizations are bound to register.
Israel's artificial 'war on terror' in the Middle East, has cost US taxpayers nearly $6 trillion and killed roughly half a
million human beings, and there's still no end in sight. source:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/news
Ludwig Watzal
, November 20, 2018 at 3:13 pm GMT
Geraldi's article shows how the Zionist Israel lobby holds the US public in choke cold and to put Israeli political goals
into the throat of the people and the US administration. Besides their power, there have to be many useful idiots who put up
with it and to support their bad goals. Their penetration of all walks of life renders it impossible to get FDD, AIPAC or all
the hundred other Israeli lobby groups registered as foreign agents. As Al Jazeera has demonstrated, these folks are working
foremost for Israeli interests. Their loyalty belongs primarily to Israel. If people would know, perhaps something could
change. But people are not allowed to tell because the Zionist controlled media are making sure of that.
@DESERT FOX
Dual citizenship has now been allowed in most (((Western liberal democracies))). There are two old adages on
the subject with slightly different views:
1) A slave cannot serve two masters; and 2) A slave with two masters is truly free.
All of the Jewish lobby groups fit into these views, but their magical mental gymnastics absolves them. In
the first instance, it is true that they cannot serve two masters, so they only serve one – Israel. In the
second instance, they are free, as they are not bound by allegiance to either master, they voluntarily serve
Israel.
Removing dual citizenship would be a step. Another step would be revisiting Chapter 115 on
Sedition. The definition under law, does not correlate with the normal legal definition.
The law contemplates force, the legal definition does not. Aligning the law with the legal concept of
sedition would put the "educational" groups would place them on less solid ground.
And finally, given that the US Constitution contemplates the government being "We, the people", all aid
to Israel is harvested from "We, the people" without consent. The famous Davy Crockett story covers it
nicely
"... In Trumpworld Israel's fantasy of the overarching Iranian menace creates a need for an alliance of steel to combat this threat to the world and that alliance must include Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... DJT wants the Saudis'money for the US economy. Like any businessman/trader at that elevated level he is loathe to surrender market share to his competitors who in this case are Russia and China. He is also quite grateful that SA has pumped enough oil and gas to depress prices. All in all, I would say that he was quite considerate in his forthright explanation to us all that he really IS the Saudi mukhtar of the United States. ..."
"... "I call upon Salman, the King of Saudi, to invite the prime minister of Israel Netanyahu to visit Saudi Arabia," Katz said on Thursday speaking at the Herzliya conference . "We saw what a wonderful host you can be when President Trump was there. You can also send your heir, the new one, Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He's a dynamic person. He is an initiator. And he wants to break through."" SF ..."
In Trumpworld Israel's fantasy of the overarching Iranian menace creates a need for an
alliance of steel to combat this threat to the world and that alliance must include Saudi
Arabia. Why that is so is not clear to me. Saudi Arabia has no armed forces that possess
real combat power to do anything but bomb civilians and oppress the Shia of the Eastern
Province. Possession of military equipment does not equal combat power. A more convincing
feature of theTrumpish view is the economic bit. DJT wants the Saudis'money for the US
economy. Like any businessman/trader at that elevated level he is loathe to surrender market
share to his competitors who in this case are Russia and China. He is also quite grateful that
SA has pumped enough oil and gas to depress prices. All in all, I would say that he was quite
considerate in his forthright explanation to us all that he really IS the Saudi mukhtar of the
United States. pl
**********
Old Post
"I call upon Salman, the King of Saudi, to invite the prime minister of Israel Netanyahu
to visit Saudi Arabia," Katz said on Thursday
speaking at the Herzliya conference . "We saw what a wonderful host you can be when
President Trump was there. You can also send your heir, the new one, Prince Mohammed bin
Salman. He's a dynamic person. He is an initiator. And he wants to break through."" SF
--------------
OK, Yisrael Katz, the intelligence minister of Israel has asked the present king of Saudi
Arabia to invite Benjamin Natanyahu to a state visit in Riyadh. What a great idea! (irony) IMO
there is nothing that would be more likely to trigger a revolt within and without the SA royal
family against King Salman and his son, the new crown prince. People just don't understand that
the Saudi population and the royal family (thousands of people in various factions) continue to
regard Israel as the ultimate enemy. For all these carefully indoctrinated Wahhabis, Israel is
an abomination that occupies a portion of the territory of the 'umma, God's territory
on earth. To invite Israel's prime minister to Riyadh for a state visit or, indeed any kind of
visit, would be to recognize Israel as a state legitimately and perpetually occupying
Palestine. The behind the scenes machinations of various acculturated princes like Muhammad bin
Salman mean nothing to the people of the Saudi kingdom. What we are talking about in such a
demand is an invitation to blasphemy and apostasy. It is typical of the vast majority of
Israelis that in their contempt for non-Jews and especially their neighbors, they remain
ignorant of such realities. A truce would be possible but not permanent recognition. pl
" ... it is unlikely in the extreme that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so
drastic without coordination with the US, particularly since this action comes literally on the
heels of President Trump's high-profile visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent,
President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US
still maintains major military presence in that country."
... the nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and
Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting
violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be
a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism." SF
----------
Saudi Arabia is a larger sponsor of Sunni jihadi movements than Qatar. That has always been
true. The "kingdom" is a state built on Sunni fanaticism. There are no churches, no synagogues,
no legally resident ministers of other faiths than Islam in the country. Mukhtar
(appointed head man and tax farmer) Donald Trump swore allegiance to his Saudi pals in Riyadh.
He did that before an army of witnesses from across the Islamic world. The Saudis have always
sought to impose their sphere of influence upon all Muslims within their reach. They
understandably think that mukhtar Trump gave them an extended reach as their henchman.
The air base at al-odeid in Qatar is a Qatari base in which the US has been allowed to
position the forward element of US CENTCOM's headquarter, the US air operations center for the
whole region and ten thousand bird men. (and women). Arabs do not do things like that from
altruistic love. The Qataris expected protection from Iran and Saudi Arabia and have not gotten
much of anything in return. Now Turkey , pursuing its Turanian destiny (on hold since the
Ottoman collapse) is building a military position as an ally of the al-than i family
rulers of Qatar. SA and its pipsqueak Gulfie allies are now threatening Turkey with - what?
Unhappiness if it does not abandon Qatar.? Did mukhtar Trump understand any of this
before he swore fealty to King Salman? I doubt it. pl
it is unlikely in the extreme that
Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US,
particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile
visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to
back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that
country.
The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and
Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting
violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be
a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.
The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface
but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the
pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here. it is unlikely in the extreme
that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US,
particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile
visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to
back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that
country.
The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and
Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting
violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be
a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.
The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface
but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the
pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here. it is unlikely in the extreme
that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US,
particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile
visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to
back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that
country.
The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and
Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting
violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be
a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.
The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface
but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the
pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here.
In a sense, that could be reversed. Indeed, none of the presidents since Bill
Clinton has done ALL that Netanyahu's Israel has demanded, since none of them have gone to
war against Iran.
Obama, it is said, couldn't stand to be in the same room as Bibi. He and
SOS Kerry negotiated the multi-party Iran Nuclear Deal against Bibi's wishes, which our
current POTUS irrationally tore up. Was Trump carrying out the will of Israel, or was it
because he could not bear to allow one of the few good things that Obama accomplished to
stand? Perhaps both.
Sixteen years ago Wesley Clark said that the PNAC plan was for the US to take out 7
countries in 5 years, with Iran being the coup de gras. Hasn't happened yet. And is Trump
really that crazy? Let's hope that Bibi, who may be on his way out of office for corruption,
never gets his war.
To Durruti, Ilyana Rozumova wrote: "I am certain that you do not know this. Medusa's
"hair" signifies the bad ideas coming out from women head. Did you notice how many women in
US are engaging in politics?
.
US is doomed!!!!"
Broken Scranton greetings, I.R.
Taking off from your having mentioned "Medusa," & (with no pun), I do not know if you
domicile in ZUSA, but linked below is a unique scene from Arnon Milchan's 1978 film, "The
Medusa Touch."
The movie turns "bad hair day" when a Boeing 747 crashes into the Pan Am Building in NYC!
Uh, where did Arnon Milchan get such precognitive inspiration?
@tac The Torah,
biblical and Quran stories were written in agrarian societies where capitalistic enterprise
hardly existed.
Loans were for not dying of hunger in the period between when the food of the last harvest
had been used completely, and the new harvest was still in the future.
Thus interest was seen as blackmailing people, they needed money to prevent dying of
starvation.
There was enterprise long ago, and trade over long distances, in the early centuries for
example swords from Damascus were famous in Europe, and exported to Europe.
Investment for business was the exception, even the first iron smelting installations were
simple, those who wanted them could build them by themselves.
The idea that invested money could yield money came later, when installations became more
complex, ships bigger, etc.
With investment came risk, there was not much risk in consumptive loans, they normally could
paid out of the coming harvest.
And so the problem began, a church not understanding capitalism, an agrarian society based on
barter changing into a money using capitalistic society.
Commercial people had no problem with interest, even now Muslims do not have problems with
interest.
What they do is simply giving interest other names, such as a fine for repaying late.
It has been agreed that the repayment will be late, so anybody is happy.
@renfro And
there you have it in a nutshell: usary -- the usurper of civilization, the enslaver of
humanity, the seed of ultimate degeneracy. It seems humanity is adverse to learn from
history. It is an interesting side-note that both Christianity and Islam both prohibit the
use of usury (a consideration worthy of mention when one contemplates the ongoing wars in the
ME) and some who here take shots at Farakhann, 'neo-nazis', blue-hair and other deplorables.
Our dilemma today is the same that occurred in Rome. Our country and people will
suffer the same fate if usury continues as it has. From the onset of history, it has
been the moneychangers, who have exploited mankind for pure profit. Usury is an abomination
against God's statutes, which manipulates and destroys people, families, and nations. It is
by the profits made from usury used to attack Christianity. One needs only to ask- who is
in control of usury worldwide? Didn't Rome suffer from these same people? Usury brings
forth an insidious side to all people. The temptation to borrow is powerful, and it always
polarizes lender against borrower where the former becomes the master and the later, the
slave. As a vice, neighbor is pitted against his neighbor, and nation against nation.
[...]
The Roman government was far too corrupt already with its politicians bought by
moneychangers for any fledgling Christian sect to have an affect on its decline. The
moneychanger's demand was perpetually self-serving, which was disparate to the common good
of the populace. Originally, Rome was founded as a republic. The unchecked influence of the
moneychangers caused it to change into a democracy. A republic is derived through the
election of public officials whose attitude toward property is respected in terms of law
for individual rights. A democracy is derived through the election of public officials
whose attitude toward property is communistic and respects the "collective good" of the
population instead of the individual. This is the resultant system that moneychangers bring
to civilization. The subversion of power is a sleight of hand that changes the right of the
individual into what is often called the "collective good" of the people (communistic),
which is always controlled by an alliance of powerful interests.
There is no reference in the article to the moneychangers and their lawyers sowing the
seeds for Roman society to suffocate under its own lethargic weight. Lawyers were indeed a
problem to Rome. The Romans were so concerned by lawyers' opprobrious effect on public
morale that they attempted to curb their influence. In 204 BC, the Roman Senate passed a
law prohibiting lawyers from plying their trade for money. As the Roman republic declined
and became more democratic, it became increasingly difficult to keep lawyers in check and
prevent them from accepting fees under the table. Indeed, they were very useful to the
moneychangers. The lawyers fed upon corruption and accelerated the downward plunge of Roman
civilization. Some wealthy Romans began sending their sons to Greece to finish their
schooling, to learn rhetoric (Julius Caesar was one example) -- a lawyer's cleverness in
oration. This compounded Rome's growing woes.
[...] The moneychangers destroyed Rome from within by first monopolizing usury, monopolizing
the precious mineral trade and then disproportionately magnifying the temporal businesses
of prostitution (including pedophilia and homosexuality), and slavery. Constantine
(306-337 AD) was the first Roman emperor to issue laws, which radically limited the rights
of Jews as citizens of the Roman Empire, a privilege conferred upon them by Caracalla in
212 AD. The laws of Constantius (337-361 AD) recognized the Jewish domination of the slave
trade and acted to greatly curtail it. A law of Theodosius II (408-410 AD), prohibited Jews
from holding any advantageous office of honor in the Roman state. Always the impetus was
buying influence concerning their trade.
[...] Usury has been the opiate that has ruined the ingenuity of many of its civilizations. As
this Jewish craft spread, the people increasingly suffered from the burdens of
indebtedness. So troubling was the effects of usury that Lex Genucia outlawed usury in
342 BC. Nevertheless, ways of evading such legislation were found and by the last period of
the Republic, usury was once again rife. Emperors like Julius Caesar and Justinian tried to
limit the interest rate and control its devastating effects (Birnie, 1958).
Entertainment was a way to temporarily set aside the burdens of indebtedness. It was a
way to festively indulge in all the glory that Rome had to offer. Rome soon became drunk on
hedonism. Collectively, entertainment helped disguise the collapsing of a great power.
Spectator blood sports, brothels, carnivals, festivals, and parties substituted for
everything that was wrong with Rome.
[...] Rome became a multi-cultural state much like our own in the United States. Indeed, it
was truly an international city. Foreigners of every nation resided and worked there. The
Romans soon intermarried and had children with the many foreigners. This included
concubines from the numerous slaves won through war. Rome had an extraordinary large
slave population and was estimated to make up about two-thirds of its population at one
time.
[...] Eventually, the Romans lost their tribal cohesion and identity. The population of Rome
had changed and so did its character. Increasing demands were made of the ruling
patricians. The aristocrats tried to appease the masses, but eventually those demands could
not be sustained. Rome had become bankrupt. The effects of usury polarized the patrician
class against an increasingly dispossessed and burdened class of citizens.
[...]
Rome was bankrupt and was collapsing. The parasitic nature of usury and its effect on
government was too complex for the uneducated plebeians to understand (see Addendum for
an illustration of usury's power). Indeed, it was the moneychangers with the use of
their lawyers that destroyed pagan Rome. The Jewish interests did not control all
usury. However, they were a people well recognized as being extremely loyal to each
other and adept in the black craft of usury. To all others (gentiles) they showed hate and
enmity. Throughout history the weapon of usury is used again and again to destroy
nations.
[...]
Fortunately, the writings of Cicero survived the burning of libraries. In the case against
Faccus, we can see the crafts of the Jews are the same today. The Jews clearly held
great influence in politics as a result of their professions and profited immensely at the
expense of Rome. We can further deduce by the case of Faccus that the Jews were not
concerned with the interests of Rome, but rather for their own interests. The Jewish
gold was being shipped from Rome and its provinces throughout the empire to Jerusalem. Why?
We also know that the Jews had utter contempt and hatred of the Romans. This contempt is
demonstrated by their breaking of Roman law, which Faccus tried to uphold. If we look
closer, we see that gold has a very special meaning to all Jewry unlike any other
people.
[...] There are enough records for us to piece together what actually occurred in Rome that
led to its downfall. Rome fell as a result of corruption and the lack of cohesion of its
own people. But, it was the instrument of usury that brought about this corruption and
allowed its gold and silver to be controlled by Jewish interests.
[...] It was Christianity that put an end to the destructive nature of usury on its people
(see addendum for usury example). Rome's treasury became barren as a result of the
moneychangers. It weakened the Roman Empire immeasurably, and thrust untold millions in
poverty, debt, and in prison. It was Christianity that halted the influence of the Jews and
their destructive trades and practices. And, the Christian faith spread throughout the
former Roman Empire. All of the European people eventually became Christianity's vanguard
and champion. Without the strict adherence to the moral ethos, any civilization will
devolve into the religion of Nimrod.
"... "The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky." ..."
"... This is not some funny Skripal affair. This is a real case of several murders (see four cold bodies) ordered by the known scoundrel. ..."
"The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all
of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him
unfolded.
The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a rare
water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being
poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths An investigation into four possible murders has
been opened.
Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within
months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely
that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony
against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told
journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky The prosecutors claim that Browder was the
party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky."
– This is not some funny Skripal affair. This is a real case of several murders
(see four cold bodies) ordered by the known scoundrel.
That Browder (a liar and cheat that made a huge fortune in Russia) has "benefited most
from the death of Magnitsky" is undoubtedly true.
@ChuckOrloski
Not surprising to anyone who understands that stealing ,especially from 'others' is a first
choice career of Jews/Israelis.
I have always suspected that the 9 billion of stolen Iraq funds were stolen by the Jews who
were embedded in the US occupation administration and sent to Israel. Israel was so broke in
2001 they asked the Us for economic aid then suddenly in 2004 by some miracle they were
rolling in surplus money again.
Investigations reveal a pattern of Israeli officials stone-walling efforts to stop the
perpetrators of massive financial swindles in various countries, from Europe to the US to the
Philippines While some Israeli reporters work to expose the scams, a new one is already
underway
By Alison Weir
[MORE]
French and Israeli media report that a group largely made up of Israelis scammed 3,000 French
citizens out of approximately $20 million. Most of the stolen money is in Israel, but Israeli
authorities are reportedly failing to cooperate with France in prosecuting the scammers and
retrieving the money.
This is the latest of numerous examples of Israeli officials stone-walling international
efforts against the perpetrators of massive financial swindles around the world, according to
Israeli investigative journalists and others. These scams have brought estimated billions
into the Israeli economy, propping up a regime widely condemned for human rights abuses and
ethnic cleansing against indigenous Palestinians. Together, the stories paint a picture of a
government that seems to be turning a blind eye to -- and even protecting -- scammers.
A Finance Magnates analysis reports that one of the swindles alone has brought in over a
billion dollars and employs 5,000 people. And a new scam, described below, may help what is
predicted to be "the next major driver of the Israeli economy."
A former IRS expert on international crime notes that "fraudulent industries are often
major economic drivers, and that can translate into political clout."
Some Israeli journalists have been working to expose the situation in Israeli newspapers,
publishing exposés like "As Israel turns blind eye to vast binary options fraud,
French investigators step in" and "Are French Jewish criminals using Israel as a
get-out-of-jail card?" (Short answer: yes.)
Victimizing French business owners & churches
The victims of the recent scam against French citizens included churches and the owners of
small businesses -- delicatessens, car repair shops, hair salons, plumbers, etc. Some lost
their life savings and describe being threatened and intimidated by the scammers.
Both share an implacable sense of Islamophobia. And, the deep sense of racial
inferiority complex which the hindoos feel, fits well with the cursed ideology of their
supremacist white-skinned Zionist masters. Them hindoos are willful lickspittle of the
Jooscum.
Man you really hit the bull's eye with this astute observation of yours (or is the golden
cafe we have here?? ;))
What I think is that, these hindoos (at least the ones who are on the top of the totem
pole) have what robert lindsay used to describe as, a very deep sense of inferiority complex
intertwined with a very superficial sense of superiority on the outside. Deeper the
inferiority complex, stronger the (external) superiority complex to offset the deep sense of
shame they have on the inside. I wonder why that is?
However it would be wrong to paint the whole country of India with the same brush. A
massive percentage of people there are bearing the brunt of toxic hatred and violence
emanating from the likes of 'zionist lickspittles' you mentioned. One can only surmise what
they must be enduring. These low caste and other minorities there would be a very patient and
stoic people as otherwise India would've erupted into a full blown civil war by now.
As for the 'jooscum', I take issue with that. There certainly are Jews, like Unz, Atzmon
and Shamir who defy the stereotype and become champions of real free speech and truth. So
again one must NOT go down that slippery slope of putting each and everyone to the guillotine
just because they happen to be cohen or ahmed or rahul or whatever. We are better than
that
@ChuckOrloski
Its much more than that .we have a lot of cost for Israel than just the yearly 3 billion, it
more like 5 billion if you count the 760,000 for missile defense and a dozen other programs
for aid to Israel. Cost was 1.6 trillion as of 2002, probably 2 trillion by now.
Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US
December 9, 2002
By David R. Francis ,Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
[MORE]
Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by
today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.
This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades,
his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the
Israel lobby.
For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its
backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he
figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.
And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli
officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs
of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion
in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.
Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by
the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't
pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both
principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.
Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed
early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.
Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion
in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting
$3 billion a year for years.
Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240
billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and
Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.
"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total
package of support for Israel," argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle
East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the
University of Maine.
These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well
spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if
Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden,
are little known.
One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other economic damage to the
US after Israel-Arab wars.
In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories
Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms,
triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US.
That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US lost $420 billion (in
2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost
another $450 billion.
Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.
Other US help includes:
• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds
worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the
United States economy, says Stauffer.
• The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600
million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to
cover these.
• The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile
projects.
• Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says
these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years.
• Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid,
ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has
won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made
equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to
Israel.
US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier.
Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often
resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.
• US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion
a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use
its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.
• Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi
Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.
@JC1
Asian-Americans are not brainwashed. When the LA riots occurred in part because a Korean
woman shot a black girl in the back of the head in her store, the Korean shopkeepers simply
got out their guns and started shooting black rioters like dogs which of course they
privately regard them to be. Blacks paid cash in their liquor stores but once this was no
longer a factor they simply started shooting at them-with much greater accuracy, too. The
average ghetto black was no match for a Korean with an SKS rifle.
Iranian Muslims are not brainwashed. When Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defense League who had
previously been known for brawling with Metzger and the Klan on talk shows tried to blow up
the mosque and congressman Issa after 9-11 (I guess he did not get the memo that the Z were
behind it) he was imprisoned. His death was suspicious and probably the result of Aryan gangs
on the inside. At any rate, so much for Jewish domination of the Muslims.
Hindus are supposedly cooperating with Jews in their takeover of the tech industry. I
cannot be sure of that. However, they are not brainwashed.
And as our Italian-American posters have noted here, the Italians who long resided in the
same cities with Jews don't give a "rat's culo" for Israel.
Supposedly the 1965 Immigration Act was engineered by Jews to destroy white society. What
it did accomplish was importing a bunch of Asians and Hispanics who do not care a whit about
Israel or Jews and some Muslims who detest them.
So it is the rural white prole who is brainwashed. He comes home from a hard day's work
and watches some film like BLACK PANTHER where a bunch of effete British character actors
play the baddies and the black Mandingo walks around in a costume and they want him to screw
their sister.
The Korean or Iranian or Italian in the city does not want to imitate blacks. Few of them
are whiggers. It is the rural white prole who wants to "keep it real". Italians who do choose
to be gangsters do not go to jail for the petty crimes that whiggers do.
I must say that the white is something of a fool. And I should add, I am one. Whites
seemed smarter in the 1990′s. But somehow they declined after Bush was elected.
Doesn't anyone else get fatigued by the constant demand for attention by the one
Ethnostate supposedly created by God ? What's in it for me ?
You get to pay for it.
Why Israel Will Never Repay US Loans
Dr. Israel Shahak
[MORE]
"All conceivable questions have been discussed about scheduling and conditions of the $10
billion in loan guarantees requested by Israel from the US government except one: How can
Israel possibly repay such a huge sum? After all, if Israel cannot repay these loans, the
burden will fall upon the guarantor, the US government, which in the last analysis means upon
the US taxpayers.
Such a repayment would in fact amount to foreign aid under another name. Because of the
deterioration of economic conditions in the US, no matter what forms of pressure the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may use, the Congress will be reluctant to offer
Israel $10 billion in an extra aid gift.
Given these realities, the best guess would be that both sides already know that since Israel
is not capable of repaying the US guaranteed loans, they regard the guarantees as a gift to
Israel in disguise.
A Gift in Disguise
Yitzhak Shamir and other Israeli government spokesmen, as well as spokesmen for Israel's
US lobby, constantly reiterate that Israel has so far been repaying its debts on time. They
don't mention that the US pays the interest on those loans, and eventually forgives them. If
the US did not do this, Israel's case would soon be comparable to that of the USSR and other
debt-ridden states which used their past good repayment records as justification for
borrowing more and more, until finally they defaulted on all their loans. The situation is
described by Israeli economist Zvi Timor, the editor of Al-Hamishmar, in an article entitled
"Dignified Behavior Under Pressure" in his journal's September 17 issue:
"For years we have been repaying all our debts from what we've been receiving as American
aid. Every year Israel gets $1.3 billion of economic aid, of which $ 1.1 billion goes for
debt repayment."
In other words, 85 percent of American economic aid "is not spent as it is supposed to be.
From private but reliable sources, I know that last year the sum in question reached $1.2
billion, i.e. 92 percent of the received "economic aid." It means that the American taxpayers
have been, without their knowledge, repaying the Israeli debt for years. Ordinary Americans
would be overjoyed if they learned that their debts were being repaid by somebody else. If
Israeli debt repayment goes under the name of "economic aid," it is to conceal from the US
public the knowledge that they are repaying somebody else's debts.
The deception is nevertheless obvious for the simple reason that the expenditure of
between $11 and $12 billion over 10 years would otherwise have produced some visible effects
in Israel. None, however, can be seen.
According to the Congressional Research Service issue brief, "Israel: US Foreign
Assistance Facts" by Clyde R. Mark (updated May 8, 1991), Israel also benefits from periodic
US government waivers. From 1974 to 1984, the United States waived repayment of part of
Israel's annual FMS (Foreign Military Sales). Since 1985, the US has waived repayment of the
total FMS. The waiver avoids establishing a program and personnel to oversee the program, as
would be required if the same amount were given as a Military Assistance Program grant.
What this means is that since the entire value of the enormous military aid the US has
granted Israel over the years is in fact a gift, Israel does not owe the US very much. The
brief states further that "the United States gives all ESF (Economic Support Funds) directly
to the Government of Israel rather than under a specific program. There is no accounting of
how the funds are used. " No other recipient of American aid benefits from such conditions,
which seem almost to have been designed to beget fraud. And fraud they did beget.
In fact, fraud and deceit have pervaded Israeli utilization of US support. Even the magnitude
of this support has been misreported. Contrary to the data routinely cited by the Western
press, combined US military and economic support to Israel has amounted not to $3.1 billion
yearly, but, as Timor stated, "in sum total, without counting the guarantees, the US
government helps Israel financially to the extent of about $5 billion."
In this sum he includes the value (to Israel) of "deductions [from US income tax] accruing to
funds raised by the United Jewish Appeal. " Incidentally, the bulk of these funds, although
they are put at the disposal of the Israeli government, remain in the US. They are used by
AIPAC and other segments of the Israeli lobby in the United States. In this way, the US
administration actually subsidizes lobbying power used against itself.
Other forms of covert American aid cited by Timor are discussed by Yossi Verter and Yigal
Laviv in an article headlined "The American financial aid to Israel is much higher than
previously known" in Hadashut of September 20. Their estimate of the total amount of support
received by Israel from the US roughly concurs with Timor's.
Relying on "documents leaked by the State Department, which were published in part by the
Wall Street Journal, " and also "on sources in the Congress" (and apparently on Israeli
sources as well), the writers conclude that "financial aid which Israel receives from the US
is much higher than published figures indicate, largely because Israel uses the received
money for complex financial speculation schemes which are without exception detrimental to
the interests of the American taxpayer."
They also assert that "between 1974 and 1989 Israel received from the US over $16 billion in
the form of military aid, but no one in the US really expected that any part of this total
would ever be repaid."
Asking About the Future
But let us leave the past aside, and ask about the future. Right now, the US pays existing
Israeli debts to commercial banks and allows their recycling. The question that therefore
remains is, how can Israel repay the additional principal and interest on the $10 billion in
loans? Or, alternatively, can Israel renounce the guarantees and impose an austerity regime
in their stead?
The latter option is already advocated by such Israeli ministers from the extreme right as
former Chief of Staff and present Minister of Agriculture Rafael Eitan. After all, in order
to repay this sum each year, Israel would have to increase its exports by at least $4
billion, or more if the profits from such exports did not reach 50 percent.
The last officially recorded value for Israeli exports was some $9.4 billion in 1988. The
value of imports was $12.3 billion, yielding a trade deficit of 23.2 percent, according to
the "Statistical Abstract of Israel, 1989." Since Israel is now in recession, the value of
its exports could not have increased much since then.
In fact, one particular export, that of weaponry, has collapsed since 1988. The value of
exported weapons, one-third of which went to Colombia alone, amounted in 1988 to $1.5
billion. The forecast for the next fiscal year was that this particular export would decrease
to $213 million.
Two major markets for the Israeli exports now are North America ($3.1 billion, of which $3
billion goes to the US) and the European Common Market ($3.2 billion). Israeli exports to the
US were composed chiefly of polished diamonds ($1.2 billion), medicines and chemicals ($180
million), and clothes and textiles ($125 million).
Only the gullible can expect that Americans, under present economic conditions, can be
influenced by AIPAC to buy more Israeli diamonds in quantifies sufficient to cover the
repayment of the new loans, to be borrowed at the rate of $2 billion per year for five years.
An increase of Israeli exports by $4 billion, or some 43 percent in a single year, is, as
Timor clearly recognizes, absolutely impossible.
Timor is right in pointing out that without the US guarantees, "a state like Israel, which
already has an enormous foreign debt per capita, enormous defense budget, enormous budgetary
deficit, and quite sizable trade deficit, would not be considered an attractive borrower on
the international financial market. " It can be mentioned in passing that an Israeli
budgetary deficit exists when the notyet granted American guarantees are already counted on
its revenue side! All these facts only reinforce disbelief in Israel's ability to ever repay
the loans guaranteed by the US.
The Austerity Alternative
The alternative option of renouncing the guarantees and imposing an austerity regime would
also have dire consequences. The proposed reduction of all salaries by 10 percent would yield
the equivalent in Israeli shekels of $2 billion. In addition to the social consequences of
this proposal, a hefty proportion of Israeli wage-earners would thus rapidly land below the
poverty line.
Nor would these sacrifices yield the intended economic effects. As Timor reminds his readers,
Israeli shekels are worthless outside of Israel. His conclusion, backed by some additional
arguments not mentioned here, is: "Any savings in shekels are bound to be quite ineffective,
because shekels are not dollars."
The prediction that Israel cannot possibly repay the loans which the US is requested to
guarantee rests on firm grounds. The data upon which this prediction is based, although not
publicized by the media before the current clash of the US administration with the Israeli
government and with the Israeli lobby in the US, were surely known to the advocates of the
guarantees from the start. This inescapably leads to the conclusion that the guarantees were
originally conceived as a grant in disguise. It would have been more honest to call them a
gift.
A loan guarantee is essentially the same thing whether you're buying a car, an apartment, or
housing materials for Soviet immigrants. A reliable financial entity (a bank, your parents,
the United States) promises to pay off the balance of a loan if the borrower cannot. So when
Congress promises Israel $9 billion in loan guarantees (as they did this year), that means
the U.S. government accepts responsibility for up to $9 billion that Israel can then borrow
from international creditors. And loans guaranteed by the Federal Reserve provide an
additional benefit: The interest rates offered are much lower than they would be if Israel
(or any small, debt-troubled nation) sought the loan without backers.
"The New York Times reported Tuesday that the United States may be planning to reduce
Israel's loan guarantees to account for any money the country spends constructing a
"security perimeter" that will divide its citizens from Palestinians. What are these loan
guarantees, and how important are they to Israel?
A loan guarantee is essentially the same thing whether you're buying a car, an apartment,
or housing materials for Soviet immigrants. A reliable financial entity (a bank, your
parents, the United States) promises to pay off the balance of a loan if the borrower
cannot. So when Congress promises Israel $9 billion in loan guarantees (as they did this
year), that means the U.S. government accepts responsibility for up to $9 billion that
Israel can then borrow from international creditors. And loans guaranteed by the Federal
Reserve provide an additional benefit: The interest rates offered are much lower than they
would be if Israel (or any small, debt-troubled nation) sought the loan without
backers.
The $9 billion in loan guarantees (along with $1 billion in direct aid) comprise a
special post-Gulf War II aid package, awarded to Israel on top of the $3 billion in other
assistance that the United States gives annually. But with loan guarantees, it's never
clear how much money is actually "given": In a perfect world, they wouldn't cost the United
States a cent. Israel -- or Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan, all of which snagged loan guarantees
as postwar rewards -- could borrow on the international markets, then pay off the loans
completely, leaving the United States with no financial obligation. But Israel has already
received nearly $10 billion in loan guarantees from the United States since 1992, and while
it has yet to default on any of those loans, this new round of guarantees is intended in
part to help Israel pay off the old debt. Which means the United States could be stuck with
a bill ranging anywhere from zero to $9 billion plus interest.
When borrowing on the United States' good credit, the Israeli government can use the money
for any purpose. However, Congress attached a series of stipulations to the recent package,
including one that reserves the right to reduce the guarantee amount to counterbalance any
money Israel spends creating new settlements in contested territory. This caveat is exactly
what Bush may use now to pressure Israel to cease construction on its "security perimeter"
-- if the caveat is employed, Israel would find itself fully responsible for part of its
loan (and thus with higher interest rates). And because Israel's annual revenues top out at
$40 billion, any tweaks to a $9 billion aid package could shake up the country's
economy.
Experts say it's far from clear that the Bush administration will follow through with this
plan. But simply threatening to reduce the guarantees can also be effective because Israel
needs the U.S.-backed loans to keep debt payments under control. In 1991, Israel was in a
similarly desperate financial situation, and the United States used the threat of limiting
loan guarantees to force then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to attend the Madrid peace
conference and suspend settlement construction while he was there
"The Department of Homeland Security allocated to Jewish institutions $12 million, or 94
percent, of $13 million in funds for securing nonprofits.
The $13 million disbursed last week brings to $151 million the amount disbursed since the
program started in 2005, most of it to Jewish institutions "
The USA is not a sovereign nation, America is a sovereign nation, could that be what you
meant to say?
The USA is a corporation organized to govern; it owners are not investor-shareholders
but robber-barren bandit stakeholders. The USA was established to mitigate and tame down
the Democracy Americans had bleed red blood to achieve. Take a look at the corporate bylaws
(constitution) of the USA, they consist of seven articles.
The Executive, Article I. (pres. vp,), the Congress Art. II. (board of directors), the
Judiciary ( to settle difference) (Article III), Articles IV clarifies relations between
the different generally lesser governments (states), Article V, invents a way to make it
possible for the constitution to terminate the Confederation (that invention is called
Ratification) It was ratification that transferred the power of government from the
continental "democracy-practicing" masses right back into the hands of the few caretakers
who were beholding to, or in service to, private banking and foreign interest. America
governed itself for 11 years . After that the pre -evolution Oligarchs (wealthy or
highly educated elites) managed to get ratified their constitution and to use it to put
themselves right back into the positions of political and autocratic power they enjoyed
before the revolution. The constitution eliminated the right of Americans to a say
in the affairs of their government. (the government, and the affairs of government, were
separated from the masses of the people. The USA was used to protect and enhance the
aristocrats from the needs, wants and plight of the masses and to extract from the masses
the funds that support USA operations. To accomplish that transition feat, the banksters
used ( or invented and used) a process called ratification (Article VII). Ratification
eliminated the American Democracy overseen by the Articles of Confederation (as
administered by the American democratic continental government).
Read Constitution Article VI [2] and [3].. you will see.. authority..shall be supreme..
Judges Senators and Representatives ,.. Members of the several State Legislatures, and all
executive and judicial officers, both of the US and of the several States [shall be bound
by it].
Constitution Article VI [1] ..engagements entered into, before the
Adoption[ratification] ..shall be valid against the US [<=meaning in spite of the
democratic wish of those who fought the British , the US corporation (USA) would "recognize
as valid" deeds to real estate obtained by Land grant from a foreigner. Millions of acres
of America would remain in a very few private hands. It meant many other similar things..
to numerous to mention here. Had the Confederation continued slavery most likely would have
not survived.
Why bother with writing Article VI{1}? These few words allowed wealthy Washington
Aristocrat types to retain their vast personal ownership in their humongous-stretches of
real estate (land holdings) given (land granted) to them or to those from whom they
acquired them by a foreign power (on behalf of the Banksters who in those days controlled
everything). Democracy itself was the threat that produced the US Constitution ;
the US constitution eliminated democracy ; the constitution replaced America's
democracy by confederation with a republic (meaning no one but the elected few are to be
permitted any say in anything (go back to work and shut the **** up).
Why was democracy a threat ? The Confederation (government by agreement) was
being urged by its war vets to make good on its promises to give every vet a homestead and
a pension for their service in the war. The vets were demanding all land in America
belonged to Americans. they were insisting to refuse to recognize claims (deeds) to real
estate that predated the American revolution; we don't recognize deeds from foreign kings.
British, French or Spanish land grant owners turn the ownership of your land over to
America (the confederation), such land does not belong to you. We Americans do not
recognize land grants from foreign governments; these lands never belonged to foreigners so
they could not give them to you. Needless to say, land grant owners (Washington and family
owned most of Virginia and a great part of West Virginia <=reason George was appointed
general of the continental army, he was so rich everyone would know who he was and
volunteer to help fight the British).
It must be remembered that the Confederation (Articles of Confederation, not the USA)
was the government that defeated the British in the American Revolution, 1776-1778! The USA
did not then exist. Eleven Confederation years between 1776 (Declaration of Independence)
and the ratification of the USA (1789)
Ratification truncated the American Democracy; ratification re-established the British
Bankster appointed Aristocrats as puppets in charge over America.
The US Constitution created an Americanized form of British Parliamentary government, in
virtually the same form as existed in British Colonial times, but without a king or queen
(instead a President and Vice President); so the USA was the banker's government that would
control America, its just that most Americans did not know it. Most Americans cannot name
one of the 11 presidents of the Confederation (AOC government) because misleading
propaganda has been substituted in their school taught histories. Most Americans don't
understand federalism, nor do they have any idea the angry controversy that forced the USA
into existence.
I have written this several times and each time I understand more about what happened.
If you see I am wrong please say so.. I am really interested to sort out the truth and that
was a long time ago.
With all due respect to Philip Giraldi I do not buy this reasoning. Outsize influence of Israel in the US politics and
especially in foreign policy is a direct result of correlation of the goals of Israel and USA on the Middle East. In a way
Israel acts as yet another (informal) US state. The moment Israel tries to pursue independent foreign policy (for example by
booting Likud from government and electing more reasonable party and deviating from the USA goals) it will face consequences,
Israeli lobby or no Israeli lobby. Israel also acts as yet another lobbyist for the US military industrial complex.
The fact that media is owned by large corporations does no imply that it is owned by Israeli interests. And if MSM conduct
pro-Israeli propaganda they do so reflecting interests of the the US elite -- financial oligarchy. And a large
percentage of financial oligarchy support Zionism.
But the fact of interference of Israeli government in the USA election are reprehensible and those involved should be
prosecuted. Possibly using RICO act.
Discussion of the article is much more interesting then the article itself, revealing many additional aspects of the power of
Israeli lobby to influence the US elections. As well as the list of US politicians they managed to send to the dustbin of
history.
Notable quotes:
"... While acknowledging the great debt to Walt and Mearsheimer, it is one thing to read about something in a book and quite another thing to see it live, which is what the new evidence of Israeli interference consists of. Several years ago, the Qatari news service al-Jazeera commissioned two investigations. The first was on the activities of the Israeli Lobby in Britain and the second was on the lobby in the United States. The material consisted largely of meetings with members of Israel's active lobby that were secretly filmed by journalists who were pretending to be supporters and who eventually managed to penetrate some of the organizations that were most active in promoting Israel's interests. ..."
"... It demonstrated how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down" parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It also revealed how the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs). ..."
"... There appears to be a Jewish moneyed lobby, working in conjunction with other moneyed lobbies to create a universal, one world government supervised by themselves. America was the first to go. Next? ..."
"... The book – Dangerous Liaison – was not particularly controversial it simply put forth what kind special relationship Israel has with its ally the US (Iran-contra, Pollard Affair, USS Liberty, Dimona, et al). The type of information all Americans should have a working knowledge of (but do not). Sorry Leslie, I was rooting for you. ..."
"... Well sure they bought Congress. But Congress has been a vestigial constitutional appendix ever since CIA sent Don Gregg to see the Church and Pike Committees. He threatened martial law and that was that. ..."
"... The three branches of the US government are still CIA, CIA, and CIA. The only interesting development is the catastrophic collapse of CIA's aggression by sending of armed bands in Syria. ..."
"... The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel's covert influence campaign in the United States. I suggest everyone watch all four episodes of this Doc. ..."
"... The Al-Jazeera documentary reveals that these fifth columnist spies and narcs are using a definition of anti-Semitism from the U.S. State Dept. to crush dissent. This definition came from none other than Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"? ..."
"... You are correct. Israel is the only country to flout the Symington Amendment, which mandates that "foreign aid" be denied to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation" agreement and refuses to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of their nuclear facilities. ..."
"... Add to that, AIPAC and many other pro-Israel organizations that have not registered as "agents of a foreign government" as required by American law. ..."
It is particularly ironic that as the midterm campaigns were drawing to a close there
appeared some serious investigative journalism that demonstrates precisely how Israel and
Jewish groups corrupt the political process in America to provide virtually unlimited support
for anything and everything that the despicable Benjamin Netanyahu and his gang of war
criminals seek to do. How the process has succeeded is best illustrated by the current Israeli
government's policy of "mowing the grass" in Gaza where it is using army snipers to kill
unarmed Palestinian protesters. Washington not only does not protest against the in-your-face
war crime, it aids and abets it with U.S. Ambassador David Friedman justifying the military
response as measured and appropriate.
Another area where Washington chooses to look the other way is regarding Israel's nuclear
arsenal, believed to consist of two hundred warheads. Under U.S. law, any country that has an
undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal cannot obtain American-made weapons and cannot received aid
of any type. Congress and the White House pretend that the Israeli nuclear arsenal does not
exist, in spite of the fact that the Israelis themselves have more than once implicitly
acknowledged it and instead of cutting aid to Israel have instead increased it. It is currently
$3.8 billion per year guaranteed for the next ten years, with extra money also available if
needed. No other country benefits from such largesse and gives in return so little.
To be sure, the groundbreaking book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by professors Stephen Walt and John
Mearsheimer, which appeared in 2007, pulled no punches in describing how the Israel Lobby
operates in the United States. It also made clear that the relationship with Israel serves no
United States national interest whatsoever and exists solely because of the corruption of the
political system and the media by principally Jewish individuals and groups that are dedicated
to that task.
While acknowledging the great debt to Walt and Mearsheimer, it is one thing to read about
something in a book and quite another thing to see it live, which is what the new evidence of
Israeli interference consists of. Several years ago, the Qatari news service al-Jazeera
commissioned two investigations. The first was on the activities of the Israeli Lobby in
Britain and the second was on the lobby in the United States. The material consisted largely of
meetings with members of Israel's active lobby that were secretly filmed by journalists who
were pretending to be supporters and who eventually managed to penetrate some of the
organizations that were most active in promoting Israel's interests.
The British expose, in two parts, aired in January, and was based on discussions and
interviews that took place between June and November 2017. It demonstrated how the Israeli
Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down" parliamentarians and
government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It also revealed
how the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli
interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs).
The secret recording revealed how an Israeli Embassy diplomat/spy named Shai Masot connived
with a senior civil servant to get rid of Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan, regarded as
a supporter of an independent Palestinian state. To Masot's additional query "Can I give you
some MPs that I would suggest you would take down?" the civil servant suggested " if you look
hard enough, I'm sure there is something that they're trying to hide a little scandal maybe."
Another alleged pro-Arab member of Parliament Crispin Blunt was also identified and confirmed
to be on a "hit list."
It was also learned that Masot had been secretly
subsidizing and advising two ostensibly independent groups, the parliamentary Conservative
Friends of Israel (CFI) and the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). Masot did, however, express
concern that Israel's control over incoming parliamentarians was not quite what it used to be:
"For years, every MP that joined the parliament joined the LFI. They're not doing that any more
in the Labour Party. CFI, they're doing it automatically. All the 14 new MPs who got elected in
the last elections did it automatically."
The documentary was initially a sensation in Britain but then, predictably, it went away as
Israel's loyal host of media scriveners took charge. Masot was recalled to Israel and Prime
Minister Teresa May, as good a friend to Jewish money and power as one is likely to find,
decided to do nothing. Her characteristically toothless reaction to the suggestion that her
government officials might be removed by the clandestine activity of a foreign country was:
"The Israeli ambassador has apologized the U.K. has a strong relationship with Israel and we
consider the matter closed."
The four-part series by al-Jazeera on the Lobby in the U.S. was meanwhile
temporarily spiked because the Qatari government was seeking to obtain the mediation of
prominent American Jews to pressure the White House to help resolve its outstanding conflict
with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The documentary has remained in limbo but in the past two weeks it has surfaced and
is now available . Its undercover investigative journalist, a British Jew named Tony
Kleinfeld, quickly charmed his way into the inner circle of Israel's supporters where he
discovered a network of organizations that act as fronts for the Israeli government. Their
activities include spying on supporters of Palestinian rights and disrupting demonstrations,
with a particular focus on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which Israel
has particularly targeted. They also resorted to tactics like smearing critics by generating
false accusations of sexual and personal misconduct, all of which was coordinated by Israel's
Ministry of Strategic Affairs. The ministry's director general is Sima Vaknin-Gil , a
former senior officer with Israel's military intelligence , and is staff consists mostly of
former spies drawn from Israel's various security agencies.
Later, Kleinfeld became involved with The Israel Project , which is a U.S. based
Israeli government backed propaganda organ that claims to be "a non-partisan American
educational organization dedicated to informing the media and public conversation about Israel
and the Middle East."
In a recorded conversation, Project employee Jordan Schachtel, explained the
objectives and extent of a secret Facebook operation. "We're putting together a lot of
pro-Israel media through various social media channels that aren't The Israel Project's
channels. So we have a lot of side projects that we are trying to influence the public debate
with. That's why it's a secretive thing, because we don't want people to know that these side
projects are associated with The Israel Project."
In another episode, the Israel on Campus Coalition's
Jacob Baime, who claimed to have a $2 million budget, described coordinating with the Israeli
government, with an approach "modeled on General Stanley McChrystal's counterinsurgency
strategy in Iraq copied a lot from that strategy that has been working really well for us,
actually" using "offensive information operations." Baime described putting "up some anonymous
website" along with targeted Facebook ads so that critics "either shut down or they spend time
responding to it and investigating it, which is time they can't spend attacking Israel. It's
psychological warfare, it drives them crazy."
Kleinfeld also met with other groups. Foundation for Defense of Democracies was revealed as yet
another
agent of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, its directors meeting regularly with
Israeli Embassy staff in Washington. In spite of that the Treasury Department has not compelled
it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). It is also registered
with the IRS as a tax exempt 501(c)3 "charity." Indeed, no Jewish organization active on behalf
of Israel has ever had to register under FARA and most are classified as tax exempt charities
or educational foundations. Interestingly, however, the FDD's Jonathan Schanzer lamented in his
recorded conversation with Kleinfeld that "anti-Semitism as a smear is not what is used to
be."
In another bizarre episode, Kleinfeld visited the neocon dominated Hoover Institute in
California where he participated in a demonstration together with a group of bored young
conservative think tankers compelled by their professors to protest against a Students for
Justice in Palestine conference. The think tank fellows admit that they were "astroturfing"
– rent-a-crowd activism to make a small demonstration appear much larger.
Another segment
includes Israeli Lobby financier Adam Milstein, who is reported to be the principal funder
of Canary Mission, which has targeted some
1,900 students and academics in its profiles
since 2015 , smearing them as "racist," "anti-American" and "anti-Semitic." Jacob Baime,
executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, boasts in the film that "Canary Mission
is highly, highly effective to the extent that we monitor the Students for Justice in Palestine
and their allies."
In his recording, Milstein also talks about the need to "investigate" and "expose" critics
of Israel, who Milstein claims are anti-Semites, as well as "anti-Christian" and "anti-freedom"
activists who "terrorize us." His foundation also funds numerous anti-Palestinian organizations,
including the Israel on Campus Coalition ,
StandWithUs ,
CAMERA , the
AMCHA
Initiative and the FDD . Milstein also
funds and is chairman of the board of the Israeli-American Council. An Israeli-born California
based real estate developer, Milstein reportedly
served time in federal prison after a 2009 conviction for tax evasion.
An
Israeli spy at the University of California at Davis, Julia Reifkind also described to
Kleinfeld how the system worked at the campus level. She used multiple fake Facebook accounts
to monitor the activities of Students for Justice in Palestine. "I follow all the SJP accounts.
I have some fake names. My name is Jay Bernard or something. It just sounds like an old white
guy, which was the plan. I join all these groups." The information she obtained was then passed
on to her contact in the Embassy for forwarding on to Israel to be entered into their data base
of enemies.
So, Israel was engaging in interfering in legitimate political activity and also generating
fake news on the social media in both 2016 and 2018, the same accusation that has been leveled
against Moscow, but Special Counsel Robert Mueller seems curiously uninterested. And beyond the
al-Jazeera revelations, there is also the evidence that it was Israel that sought favors
from the incoming Trump Administration in 2016, not Russia. So who was actually corrupting
whom?
And then there are the more overt Israeli front groups like the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its $100 million annual budget and 200 employees, as well as the
other special arrangements to pander to Israel and the powerful American Jews who have made it
their mission to use the U.S. government as a mechanism to protect and nurture Israel. Last
week in Los Angeles $60 million
was raised by Hollywood's finest for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), "Their Job is to Look
After Israel. Ours is to Look After Them," the website proclaims.
Last month, an additional $32 million was raised for the IDF in New York City. Donations are
tax exempt, to support the armed forces of a country that is currently engaged in war crimes
and that has a secret nuclear arsenal.
So, Israel was technically speaking not running in the 2018 election, but it was very much
in the race. Jewish Democrats are
already boasting how the presence of a couple of Israel critics in the House, who will be
"reeducated" on the Middle East, will make no difference, that the party will be solid for the
Jewish state with more Jewish congressmen than ever before. Indeed, the "special relationship"
bond will be stronger than ever.
Five committee chairmanships in the House of Representatives will be in the hands of
passionate Israel firsters, including Adam Schiff at the Intelligence Committee and Eliot Engel
at Foreign Affairs. On the Republican side, the House is already 100% in Israel's pocket. And
as part of the White House team we have John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Donald Trump's Ambassador
to Israel David Friedman expressed the dual loyalty phenomenon best in a
recent speech . The United States is his "country of citizenship" but Israel is the country
he "loves so much."
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
Gosh, I don't know where to start.
By God, Giraldi, you said a mouthful. Even two mouthfuls.
Where do we begin? I don't know. I am not a 'anti-Semite' or anti-Jew. As a matter of fact my
girlfriend for four years was Jewish. That's another story.
There appears to be a Jewish moneyed lobby, working in conjunction with other moneyed lobbies
to create a universal, one world government supervised by themselves. America was the first
to go. Next?
While I don't live in Va I was hoping for wins from congressional candidates Abigail
Spanberger and Leslie Cockburn. Unfortunately Cockburn was handed a defeat and while she was
probably always a longshot it undoubtedly didn't help that the journalist was questioned
about a book she co-authored in the 90′s (which I read).
The book – Dangerous Liaison – was not particularly controversial it
simply put forth what kind special relationship Israel has with its ally the US
(Iran-contra, Pollard Affair, USS Liberty, Dimona, et al). The type of information all
Americans should have a working knowledge of (but do not). Sorry Leslie, I was rooting for
you.
Sadly Crispin Blunt was taken down as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and
replaced by execrable arch neocon and descendant of German Jews Tom Tugendhat. Blunt had
authored reports criticising government actions in Libya and Syria and was looking to
investigate the influence of lobbies on British policy in the Middle East.
The list of prominent politicians "taken down" by Israel is lengthy, and includes
Cynthia McKinney, Adlai Stevenson III, Paul Findley, Chuck Percy, William Fulbright, Roger
Jepsen, and Pete McCloskey.
I'm trying to think of a more recent example to make this point more relevant today and I
can only come up with Chuck Hagel even if it was done with velvet gloves.
No matter what sort of war crime Israel commits, no matter what level on interference crypto-Israeli donors and partisans
inject into America's political landscape, the Zionist nexus inside our civilization is now so embedded and untouchable that
its operatives can openly suborn US lawmakers while other Zionists initiate war (or use US power to do so) against rising
Mideast countries that Israel wants weakened, divided, or crushed.
Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria and Khadaffy's Libya discovered this the hard way.
Despite these slick machinations, there are few public protests, (((Media))) examinations, or movements inside America that
effectively oppose/thwart Israeli violence or the shrewd interference by Zionists in every US election since LBJ.
Why?
No one dares.
This, despite 1) Israel's possession of a rogue nuclear stockpile along with 2) Israel's multi-decade campaign to expel or
subjugate its native population of non-Jews, 3) Israel's ongoing acquisition of territory by force and 4) Israel's
trigger-happy propensity to annihilate (or harness US power to do so) any surrounding non-Jewish peoples (or nation) which
poses a potential "existential threat"to the Jewish state. (Palestine, Lebanon, Iran are you listening?)
Not only do American taxpayers subsidize and protect affluent Israel above beyond every other nation in world history, but
this oddball US commitment to the Zionist State is granted without precondition. That's right. It's unconditional. Israel's
extraordinary political privilege is astoundingly unique and uniquely dangerous.
Despite this political anomaly, in no US election (including the last one) is Zio-Washington's 'special relationship' with
nuclear-ready Israel ever an issue. Not one. Compare this to Washington's wild, unhinged obsession with Iran's non-nuclear
stockpile of weapons. America's irrational fear of Iran is an exotic delusion that's been cooked up by Zionists. Like Iraq and
Libya before it, Iran is slated for dismemberment. So stay tuned to your TVs for the latest news!
America's arranged but artificial marriage to the Zionist cause benefits Israel. Immensely. At the same time, it's cost us
trillions. Trillions. Oil embargos, annual billion-dollar aid packages, along with winless, trillion-dollar wars do gradually
add up. Yet political dissent remains muted. Taboo.
Anti-Semitism! (hush.) Meanwhile, America's pro-Zionist news and entertainment industries simplify, amplify, enable, and
solidify Israel's near-sacred status. No accident. You've heard the stories. You've heard the speeches. You've seen the films.
You've visited the museums.
Israel's unique untouchability allows it to rise above international constraints (with the assistance of Zio-Washington and
(((Big Media))) as it conducts military operations (and acts of war) that violate US laws, the UN Charter, as well as the
Geneva Conventions. Shouldn't this matter?
Certainly. But supreme victims enjoy supreme privileges.
Today, a tiny foreign power steers and shapes the policies and mindset of the world's most powerful civilization. No small
feat. No small threat.
Yep, Indian-Americans have not read it and do not seem that interested in Jews. Neither do Iranians. Catholics, which means
Irish and Italians on the East Coast and Latinos everywhere, do not seem to much care about Israel either.
Blacks in the US do not seem to much love Jews or care about Israel at all with the Muslim lunatic fringe of Farrakan etc.
deeply disliking them.
Apparently Evangelical Protestants of various sects love Jews for theological reasons and these people seem to have the
smallest piece of the pie these days.
Chinese, Indians, Iranian Muslims etc either are indifferent or detest Israel and yet they seem to be doing better than the
whites in the "bible belt".
Though a good number of rednecks who grew up singing old testament hymns would say that Jews deny their savior and don't
worship Jews.
@Z-man Charles
Freeman. His nomination to the NSC blocked by the Israeli lobby. Brilliant guy, career
foreign service officer and former U.S. ambassador.
American politicians love Israel because it legitimizes their own corruption. They can be
bought and paid for political whores without having to hide it. As soon as anyone points out
that they are selling out their own country, they can recite the magic "anti-semitism"
incantation to make the criticism go away.
Judaism is nothing more than a "service-to-self" ideology, characterized by negative concepts
(e.g. greed, selfishness, etc.) and incapable of forgiveness. It's absolutely immiscible with
any form of a "service-to-others" ideology.
Well sure they bought Congress. But Congress has been a vestigial constitutional appendix
ever since CIA sent Don Gregg to see the Church and Pike Committees. He threatened martial
law and that was that. Congress degenerated into a crooked pedo playpen with a single
function: deciding matters beneath CIA's notice with legalized peculation.
The three branches of the US government are still CIA, CIA, and CIA. The only interesting
development is the catastrophic collapse of CIA's aggression by sending of armed bands in
Syria. This latest, possibly terminal, failure has spurred a frenzy of finger-pointing. When
CIA wrecked Vietnam they blamed the Pentagon (see Prouty's The Secret Team) and everybody
fell for it. But now with Syria, CIA pretended the Jews made them do it. That failed the
laugh test, so now they're framing Amway shitstain Eric Prince.
Another words walk up to any Chinese-American (The ones in California have been in the US
longer than most East Coast ethnic whites like the Italians) or Indian-Americans and ask them
what they know or care to know about Jews or Israel. They will say zero.
You'd get something genuinely negative from the Iranian Muslim community out in Los
Angeles. And also a good number of blacks.
Hispanics know little about Israel. Did not stop Cubans from taking over Miami.
I don't know what you define as a "real American".
The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part
undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel's covert influence campaign in the United
States.
I suggest everyone watch all four episodes of this Doc.
@Baxter It's
more than just a moneyed lobby that has pulled this off for the past 100 years in america.
Much more. The Jewish mafia was heavily involved from the earliest days of the 20th century.
I highly recommend you all listen to this interview with Jeff Gates, someone who has as many
qualifications as any of the authors on Unz.com to talk about the Jewish lobby. The youtube
interviews with Jeff Gates are essential listening:
I wish I could find the quote but Jeff Gates thinks Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is light weights. Somewhere he makes the
comment "anyone who compares the Jewish Lobby to other lobbies [like the dairy lobby] as if
the Jewish Lobby happens just to be a little more effective than the rest is missing the
point of the exercise here."
lol @ this article and these comments. Love the tears! Never was there a more deserving group
of people to feel dejected and demoralized.
I think the most hilarious part though was this one:
In fact, Americans have never had the option of voting on the "special relationship"
that Israel enjoys with the United States as no Congressman would dare run against it lest
they be smeared in the media and find themselves running against an extraordinarily well
funded opponent benefitting from large donations coming from out of state sources.
Public opinion polls have consistently, over decades, shown that Americans are pro-Israel.
The only exceptions are blacks, far leftist whites, and Muslims, and even the first two are
not overwhelmingly anti. The needle has hardly moved in decades.
Americans have had the chance to vote, over and over, every Congressional and Presidential
election for going on 40 years now, on whether US policy should be more pro-Iran and less
pro-Israel, and they have constantly chosen, with more consistency than basically any other
issue in that time period, to side with Israel. Complaining that there are -gasp-
organizations with money involved in this issue, even some from -gasp- out of
state , is hilarious and pathetic. Every issue in American politics has lobbyists and
national money flying around like crazy – guns, abortion, you name it. And every side
that loses in the court of public opinion says that they did so because of 'out of state'
money, even when they have more of it. Giraldi worked in government so he knows it, but why
have an honest perspective when you can enrage the hive?
You really can't come up with a more thorough rejection by the American people of a
political position than they have delivered, decade after decade, to the anti-Israel side.
The only side less popular than Iran lackeys in American discourse might be NAMBLA,
and even that is a close call.
America looks at the anti-Israel coalition and accurately sees a motley and pathetic mix
of Farrakhan FOI stompers, Borat-like Islamists, triggered blue-haired college screamers, and
Nazi-larping neckbeards, and says no thanks.
@Anonymous
Bullshit. Americans are only "pro-Israel" because that is all they hear from the media and
the politicians. And that is because Jews control the media and the politicians.
The Al-Jazeera documentary reveals that these fifth columnist spies and narcs are using a
definition of anti-Semitism from the U.S. State Dept. to crush dissent. This definition came
from none other than Hillary Clinton. I especially liked this line:
Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded
of any other democratic nation
They may want to rethink that one, as Israel fails pretty much all tests of the behavior of a
democratic nation, starting with being a democracy in the first place.
To think that Hillary, along with her fellow travelers like Victoria Nuland, are the
arbiters of what is or isn't anti-Semitism is quite a laugh.
Israel is just getting itself deeper and deeper into a quandary about what to do with the
Arabs in the occupied territories. They cannot be given full rights and there is not the
unsettled land to give them the state everyone including America pretends is going to be the
outcome of a temporarily stalled process. Israel is greasing the skids to disaster.
Indeed, bullshit! Why do you love Palestinians so much or conversely, dislike/hate Israelis
in equal measure?
Is it really the treatment of Christians of Arab origin in Judea and
Samaria that really galls you but won't say it out loud? If Jews are as powerful as you claim
they are, then why not just give them the Southern Lebanon, the Bekka Valley, the Gaza strip
and the Sainai Peninsula and ten billion dollars a year, which would be just a drop in the
bucket, to live us alone?
Why not resettle the most educated of all Arabs, the Palestinians,
in other Arab nations, and there're so many lands to choose from, but especially, Saudi
Arabia to help those gluttonous Afro-Semitic morons? Why egg on the Palestinians without
hope, to the discomfort of all humanity by giving the Jews the very excuse to hammer the
world with the exaggerated accusations of anti-Semitism? Why prolong what is inevitable and
how does it benefit, the people on whose behalf you are fuming?
As I said above, maybe start with the optics of all these Holocaust deniers, Borats,
Farrakhans, and blue-hairs. Look at who your articles attract – do you think
Americans like those people?
Most Americans are totally ignorant of the evil that has been done to their nation and the
West by Zionist Jews.
Most Americans are completely ignorant about the extent Zionist Jews control the
government of the United States and the media.
Most Americans know nothing about the role played by Zionist Jews in the mass murders
perpetrated by the communists in Russia and China.
Most Americans take the holocaust as gospel and believe the Jews have never harmed anyone
but have been the victims of the worst genocide in history.
Do not use the ignorance of the average American to claim that criticism of Zionist Jews
is irrational.
@Philip Giraldi
It is slightly amusing is it not to find that specious intervener illustrating part of your
case by appearing as Anonymous [272] and Anonymous [279] just a breath apart ..?
What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a
resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of
Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have
ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?
@RobinG He is known to be an Islam hater thus
unconditional support for Israel. This remark in itself is a proof how Israel is used to inflict havoc on the Islamic
civilization. Jews are the biggest beneficiaries of demonization of Islam. The mercenary terrorist army of CIA/Mossad is
called Islamic state.
@Z-man Liberal
Republican Senator Chuck Percy's takedown was particularly egregious and revealing.
He lost his position despite his popularity in Illinois politics. The deep pockets of The
Lobby and its control of the media (and the Republican Party) were simply too much for him to
counter.
After his senatorial defeat in 1985, The Lobby must have felt that an example must be made
of him. He then became a total nonperson both in politics and in the Washington DC social
scene which he chose to continue to reside in. He never spoke again (to my knowledge) before
any significant Republican Party event. In fact, his very name became a virtual dirty word in
Republican circles, right up there with the names of convicted child molesters or embezzlers.
Arch-Zionist Ronald Reagan enforced this shunning up until the end of his presidency.
Percy was no longer invited to appear in the mainstream media or speak before business or
academic groups. He simply disappeared.
Poof, like he had never been there in the first place.
When he died in 2011, many people In Washington were surprised. They had assumed he has
died decades before because of his blacklisting and the resulting invisibility.
Senator J. William Fulbright, a one-time icon of the left wing because of his opposition
to the Vietnam War was also quickly disposed of after he tried to oppose The Lobby and found
his left wing "friends" (along with their contributions) deserting him in droves.
Al this happened because they tried to be very slightly impartial about Israel.
Americans have had the chance to vote, over and over, every Congressional and
Presidential election for going on 40 years now, , and they have constantly chosen, with
more consistency than basically any other issue in that time period, to side with
Israel.
If that's true, then why are they spending such enormous sums of money to buy all of
Congress ? If the thing runs by itself, then why on God's green earth, does it need such
constant greasing of the skids ? Grant Smith of IRmep, who studies the financial pooling of
something like 200 Jewish organizations in the US, estimates I that together, they're
collecting money on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars from their diaspora and
lunatic Christian sects. This money is then used to buy Congress lock stock and barrel and
then to force it, among other things, to sign over billions in "aid" to Israel.
You poor child, were you not aware of any of this ? And you just thought the sniveling
prostrations and groveling our elected "leaders" perform each year at the AIPAC conference or
on their campaigns is all spontaneous ? Dear, dear, there is better quality acting at the
AIPAC conference than there ever was at any Oscar show or in any therein nominated film.
Face it, Israel is no different. Both sides are mustering money and influence, and you
lost fair and square in the court of public opinion.
Oh, but you might have the perspective a tad off; the fight may be just beginning.
It may be that in the past, Israel's friends might well have exercised power which easily
swung in their direction, but there may not have been much at stake for everyone else. Maybe
the fight wasn't worth it if you disagreed, but there could come a time when the balance
sheet of liabilities might begin to swing in the other direction. I sincerely hope you'll
maintain your sportsmanship attitude when that time comes, as it inevitably always does.
It seems like these facts are likely to increase anti-Semitism even against those who don't
deserve to be subjects of prejudice, since this reveals the colonial nature of the
Anglosphere.
I don't recall the chief beneficiary of any other lobby helping to lie America into a war
with muslims that has since metastasized into pandemic proportions. I also don't recall any
other lobby beneficiary running interference for one of its compatriots who happened to
inflict the worst damage to American intelligence in its history. Come to think of it, this
very same beneficiary has been caught repeatedly committing espionage against America ~ a
crime which, if committed by any other actor, would warrant severe punishment ~ yet received
no punitive consequences for it.
@exiled off mainstreet But, as you admit, they
are FACTS. And, as such, must be disseminated to the uninformed and ignorant Americans.
If it does cause anti-Semitism, which is becoming as meaningless term as racism, how are the Anglos at fault? Whose
behavior is going to cause this resentment and blowback? Its certainly not the British! The British haven't been colonial for
quite awhile.
However the USA has become a colonial vassal for Israel. So who is the imperial power now?
You
are correct. Israel is the only country to flout the Symington Amendment, which mandates that
"foreign aid" be denied to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation"
agreement and refuses to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of their
nuclear facilities.
Add to that, AIPAC and many other pro-Israel organizations that have not registered as
"agents of a foreign government" as required by American law.
Be sure to watch The Lobby USA to see how treacherous our illegitimate govt. has become.
It gives you an idea of how these 6,000,000 Jewish lobbies work around the clock spying on,
blackmailing, subverting our govt. here in occupied America. They're letting these agents of
a hostile and repressive govt. (Israel) run around the US spying on Americans, using
blackmail, extortion, threats, violating their Constitutional rights. Nobody in Washington
seems to care. How long before Israel is assassinating American citizens for exercising their
rights?
Sheldon Adelson was at the White House watching the results of the midterm elections with
his puppet Trump, eating pizza, "mini" hotdogs, and burgers. No joke. He's started his own
lobby called IAC – Israeli American Council, thats even more extreme that AIPAC.
All traitors, all loyal to Israel. Republicans are owned by the Zionists and war
profiteers folks. Democrats not any better. All traitors.
As the British were bankrupted by an unnecessary war with Germany, the "New American Century"
isn't shaping up very well two decades in. 6T in additional debt from fighting Middle Eastern
wars for Israel is the biggest reason why, and there is no end in sight.
I actually don't think Israel has that much genuine organic political support among
Americans. It is all held together with media-fed illusions and threats.
@Cal Eyefornia'I agree with you. Lots of anti-Semitic nonsense on this site, e.g. "where are all the
millions buried?" (How about: all over Europe and Russia, cretins.) While the number of Jews
murdered by Nazis may be, say, half of the "official" figure (still horrific), the lunatic
fringe here won't provide their own figure (likely because they think it's zero). They
actually believe Hitler was a nice guy and every Jew in the world is a member of the "Jew
Illuminati." They think Israel bosses the USA around, and is the world's big dog that wags
the tail. They laughably point to people like Henry Ford and anti-Semitic sites like
codoh.com as "unbiased" sources for debate. They all need to "get a life."'
Well, Israel does boss the US around, and is inarguably one of the world's 'big dogs,'
which, for a nation the size of Honduras or Togo, does call for an explanation.
@exiled off
mainstreet'It seems like these facts are likely to increase anti-semitism even
against those who don't deserve to be subjects of prejudice, since this reveals the colonial
nature of the Anglosphere.'
Nu? The Holocaust increased bigotry directed at Germans, and Pearl Harbor didn't do much
for the popularity of Japanese.
Compared to these two groups, Jews are overwhelmingly supportive of their chosen evil.
It'd be damned strange if they didn't wind up having to pay.
@Tyrion 2 Jews
don't possess military power. They possess the benefit of a verbal dexterity and business
savvy that allows them to network in order to control banks and media.
You cannot conquer. You can only manipulate.
It is the difference between Mike Tyson threatening to kick your ass and Charles Manson
hypnotizing you.
The Unites States of America is effectively owned and controlled by Jews
How about The US of A is effectively colonized by the Zionists ?
All the noise and nonsense about Russian interference in American elections pale in
comparison to decisions on America's elected reps right to the President requiring Zionist
approval before they can win their seats. The control is total and absolute. This coming from
a country which depends on our tax dollars to maintain their criminal activities. And now the
push is on for WWIII forcing us to brinkmanship with the Russians in Syria and Europe. This
is an unprecedented abdication of US sovereignty.
I can't read all the responses, but I caught yours.
Look at it this way. 537 politicians in Washington, DC know 9-11 was a zionist jewish
operation and not a word out of any of them. Maybe a few are slow or hopelessly naive about
israel, so bump that number down to, say, 530. And again, not a peep.
537 of our "leaders" know israel was behind 9-11 yet they gave Netanyahu the record for
standing ovations during a speech. Think of how profound that fact is. Pure traitors.
Chistopher Bollyn once mentioned the point that not one college or high school has a
course or class on what subject is the 9-11 attacks. Suspicious, isn't it?
@Anonymous When
do you EVER see Jewish missionaries trying to convert people? I've seen Mormons and Catholics
overseas trying to convert people. But not Jews. When Jews do convert locals it is for
pussy-some ancient handful of males settle somewhere like Ethiopia or Italy and marry local
women. But it is not for salvation. Only for their pussies.
Part of this is empathy. The Christian sees the poor and disenfranchised and wants to
assist. The Korean shopkeeper in a black ghetto does not give a shit what the blacks believe
in and just wants his money.
@Anonymous "
maybe start with the optics of all these Holocaust deniers.."
– Why don't we start with the "optics" of Jewish Bolsheviks and their murderous
hatred towards Russians and Russian culture? Millions died in the labor camps (run and
"improved" by the Jewish administrators, see Naftali Frenkel), in the chambers of secret
police (see Yagoda and Berman), and in the villages of Ukraine and Kazakhstan during
Holodomor (courtesy of certain Kaganovich).
The most important "deniers" of today are Nuland-Kagan (the organizer of pro-neo-Nazi
putsch in Ukraine), Knesset (the provider of Ukrainian neo-Nazi with Israel-made rifles), and
the zionized US Congress that has been supporting the neo-Nazi-infested Ukranian
government.
And do not forget the profiteering and amoral ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center that both
refused to support the Conyers amendment: "If passed, Conyers' amendment would have
explicitly barred those found to have offered "praise or glorification of Nazism or its
collaborators, including through the use of white supremacist, neo-Nazi, or other similar
symbols" from receiving any form of support from the US Department of Defense. The ADL and
Wiesenthal Center refused to support Jeffries and Conyers' proposal."
https://www.alternet.org/world/how-israel-lobby-protected-ukrainian-neo-nazis
P.L. 115-141, the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following
for Israel:
· $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore
procurement;
· $705.8 million for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense projects, including $92
million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3
million for Arrow 2;
· $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
· $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
· $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and
water technologies;
· $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation
(BIRD) Energy program; and
· The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through
fiscal year 2019.
For FY2019, the Trump Administration is requesting an additionl $3.3 billion in Foreign
Military Financing for Israel and $500 million in missile defense aid to mark the first year
of the new MOU. The Administration also is seeking $5.5 million in Migration and Refugee
Assistance (MRA) funding for humanitarian migrants to Israel.
Israeli and American Jewish actions detailed in the article make perfect sense when you come
to realize that the US is no longer a sovereign nation at its core. The US only has a facade
of being one.
The facade is starting to crumble both because of the internet and Jewish arrogance.
Consequently, the goys are the beneficiaries of more censorship of bad thoughts. The plan is
to use increased censorship to prevent the facade from crumbling sufficiently to expose the
reality to the masses. Any empire wants to keep its colonies in line
America looks at the anti-Israel coalition and accurately sees a motley and pathetic mix
of Farrakhan FOI stompers, Borat-like Islamists, triggered blue-haired college screamers,
and Nazi-larping neckbeards, and says no thanks.
It seems apparent that you took exception (a sudden high blood pressure alert is making
you post this response?) to my expose on the role of Jewish slavery [as the videos of Dr.
Louis Farrakhan, who also happens to be AGAINST usury and in conjunction with PEACE--like
most of Christindom] (and I did not even include the Roman/Greek periods and the hand that
was attributed to the Jewish predominant role in slavery). But do continue because .
it will expose this inhumane dominance of slavery–just like it still exists today.
RE (original reference included here):
Why do the supremacist Jews refuse to take accountability in their role for slavery?:
"What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right
to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those
contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?"
Not sure what you are on about. Iraq was a secular state until invaded by the USA, which churned things up politically .
Syria has traditionally been a tolerant state that was home to one of the oldest Christian commujities, and a number of
different Islamic groups. Libya was a secular state–no state religion in Libya that I know of.
It is the US and Zionist ally, Saudi Arabia, that is the most religiously intolerant state in the ME and also the biggest
exporter of religious fanaticism.
Israel is the only [Religious designation] State in the ME -- no, in the whole world. I am unaware of the existence of a
Christian State, an Islamic State (except the caliphate), a Buddhist State, a Zoroastrian State. Israel is the most intolerant
state on the planet.
Ben Norton & guys like you give me hope that our country could still become saved by
"facts and a timeline."
As you know, Israeli crimes foisted upon upon the divided-Homeland, including unnecessary,
immoral, & ruinously expensive wars against "rogue/foes," for example, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, Yemen, and likely soon Iran, NEVER NEVER NEVER require presentation of solid
evidence to dumb-goyim trained 'Merkins.
Disgusting. Embarrassing. A Yinon Plan underway for the USA! Ycch. I am pissed.
Along with partner Corporate Media-conspirators, The New York Times editorial board
deserves instant "regime change" because of their theatrical complicity with our treasonous
Zio Congress and Executive Branch.
What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a
resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of
Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have
ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?
How typically ridiculous.
The reaction we should see would be to the statement that we will not support Israel as
long as it occupies Palestine and discriminates against non Jews in Israel.
Israel is a midget Nazi state not a democracy.
To Durruti, Ilyana Rozumova wrote: "I am certain that you do not know this. Medusa's
"hair" signifies the bad ideas coming out from women head. Did you notice how many women in
US are engaging in politics?
.
US is doomed!!!!"
Broken Scranton greetings, I.R.
Taking off from your having mentioned "Medusa," & (with no pun), I do not know if you
domicile in ZUSA, but linked below is a unique scene from Arnon Milchan's 1978 film, "The
Medusa Touch."
The movie turns "bad hair day" when a Boeing 747 crashes into the Pan Am Building in NYC!
Uh, where did Arnon Milchan get such precognitive inspiration?
First, let's begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that Americans don't like
wars. That is totally false. Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they absolutely
love them. In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the perceived outcome of
that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If
it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the
total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply "forget" it. And if it is an undeniable defeat
(say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed, most Americans will be categorically opposed to
it.
Veterans of foreign wars? Wait, I was not aware that there were any other types of vets!
Next is myth #2: the truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of
the US since at least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced
Japan to wage war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack
Japan). Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their
land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one ! All the
wars fought by the US since 1945 were wars of aggression, wars of choice and most of them were
completely illegal to boot (including numerous subversive and covert operations). At most, one
can make the argument that US veterans defended the so-called "American way of life," but only
if one accepts that the said "American way of life" requires and mandates imperialist wars of
aggression and the wholesale abandonment of the key concepts of international law.
Finally, there is the ugly dirty little secret that everybody knows but, for some reason,
very few dare to mention: the decision to join the (all volunteer) US military is one primarily
based on financial considerations and absolutely not some kind of generous "service" of the
motherland for pure, lofty, ideals. Yes, yes, I know -- there were those who did join the US
military after 9/11 thinking that the US had been attacked and that they needed to help bring
the fight to those who attacked the US. But even with a very modest degree of intelligence, it
should have become pretty darn obvious that whether 9/11 was indeed the work of Bin Laden and
al-Qaeda or not (personally I am absolutely certain that this was a controlled demolition) --
this atrocity was used by the US government to justify a long list of wars which could not have
possibly had anything to do with 9/11. Hey, after all, the US decided to attack Iraq (which
self-evidently had nothing to do with 9/11) and not the KSA (even though most of the putative
hijackers were Saudis and had official Saudi backing). Besides, even if some folks were not
smart enough to see through the lies and even if THEY believed that they joined the US military
to defend the US, why would the rest of us who by 2018 all know that the attack on Iraq was
purely and solely based on lies, "thank" veterans for stupidly waging war for interests they
cannot even identify? Since when do we thank people for making wrong and, frankly, immoral
decisions?!
Let me repeat that truism once again, in an even more direct way: veterans are killers
hired for money. Period. The rest is all propaganda.
In a normal sane world, one would think that this is primarily a moral and ethical question.
I would even say a spiritual one. Surely major religions would have something relevant and
clarifying to say about this? Well, in the past they did . In fact, with some slight variations , the
principles of what is called a "just war" have been known in the West since at least Augustine
of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. According to one source they are:
A just
war can only be waged as a last resort . All non-violent options must be
exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A war is just only if it is waged by a
legitimate authority . Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by
individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and
outsiders to the society deem legitimate. A just war can only be fought to redress a
wrong suffered . For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered
to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient -- see point #4).
Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective
of a just war is to redress the injury. A war can only be just if it is fought with a
reasonable chance of success . Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are
not morally justifiable. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace
. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that
would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. The violence used in the war must be
proportional to the injury suffered . States are prohibited from using force not
necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered. The weapons used
in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants . Civilians are
never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians.
The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate
attack on a military target.
Modern religions for war
(Check out this article for a
more thorough discussion of this fascinating topic)
Now Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas are hardly heroes of mine, but they are considered
as very authoritative in western philosophical thought. Yet, when checked against this list of
criteria, all the wars fought by the US are clearly and self-evidently totally unjust :
all of them fail on several criteria, and most of them (including the attack on Iraq and
Afghanistan) fail on all of them!
But there is no need to go far back into the centuries to find authoritative western
thinkers who clearly denounce unjust wars. Did you know that the ultimate crime under
international law is not genocide or crimes against humanity?
Robert H Jackson
Nope, the supreme crime under international law is the crime of aggression. In the words of
the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States, Robert
H. Jackson , the crime of aggression is the supreme crime because "it contains within itself the accumulated
evil" of all the other war crimes. He wrote: " To initiate a war of aggression,
therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crimediffering only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil
of the whole ."
So from the 4th century through the 20th century, the people of the West always knew what a
just war was, and they fully understood that starting such a war is the supreme evil crime
under international law. But this goes beyond just major wars. Under international law, the
crime of "aggression" does not only refer to a full-scale military attack. Aggression
can be defined as
the execution of any one of the following acts:
Declaration of war upon
another State. Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the
territory of another State. Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a
declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State. A naval blockade of
the coasts or ports of another State. Provision of support to armed bands formed in its
territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the
request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to
deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.
Finally, it is important to note here that by these authoritative legal definitions,
every single US President is a war criminal under international law! This, in
turn, begs the question of whether all the wars fought by US soldiers since 1945 were indeed
waged by a legitimate authority (as mentioned by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas above)?
How can that be when the Commander in Chief himself is a war criminal?
Let's sum it up so far: we have folks who agree to become killers (or
killer-assistants), who do that primarily for financial reasons , who then
only participate in illegal and immoral wars of aggression and
whose commander in chief is a war criminal .
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most
profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the
only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is
best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the
people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war, a few people make huge
fortunes.
If we agree that war is, indeed, a "racket" and that it is conducted "for the benefit of the
very few" then it would make sense for these "very few" to express their gratitude to those
whom they hired to enrich them. And, in fact, they do. Here is the best example of that:
Corporation for war (well, that at least makes sense!)
Of course, Google is no more dependent on wars of aggression than any other US corporation.
The very nature of the US economy is based on war and has always been based on war. The
so-called "American way of life" but without wars of aggression has never been attempted in the
past, and it won't be attempted for as long as the US remains the cornerstone of the
AngloZionist Empire and the world hegemony it seeks to impose on the rest of mankind. But until
that day arrives the "American way of life" will always imply wars of aggression and the mass
murder of innocent people whose only "sin" is to dare to want to live free and not be a slave
to the Empire. If you believe that those who dare to want to live free in a truly sovereign
country deserve to be murdered and maimed, then yes November 15,
2018 at 5:56 am GMT
Within this context one ought to mention the "Crime of Aggression":
"A Crime of Aggression is a specific type of crime where a person plans, initiates, or
executes an act of aggression using state military force that violates the Charter of the
United Nations. The act is judged as a violation based on its character, gravity, and
scale.[1]
Acts of aggression include invasion, military occupation, annexation by the use of force,
bombardment, and military blockade of ports."
Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their
land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one!
99% of soldiers became soldiers because it was the best available job, it had nothing to do
with patriotism or love of country. Puting them on a pedestal is an invention of politicians
trying to glorify the job so as to suck in more soldiers.
All this thanking is purely pro-forma bullshit. At every NBA game there is a halftime moment
when some "hero among us" usually a veteran, is honored. More often than not he spent his
time in the military in front of a computer screen in Nevada. I would bet that not a single
one of all the thousands who attended these games could identify one of these "heroes among
us" by name five minutes after they honored them. It's all empty ritual, a bitter fraud just
like the rest of American public life.
The most interesting in this topic is the dichotomy between the blatantly obvious that Saker
writes about -- that US military person is the lowest level of a mercanairy that the World
has ever seen, which most of the rest of the World is so acutely aware of and the military
"service" taboo built in the US. Did Saker really need to explain that US military is only
about killing of the defenders and their innocent? To who did this need explaining? To
cretins such as Intelligent Dasein, who think that declaring himself pro-Russian gives him
the high moral point to attack the messenger of his own emptiness (not all veterans can write
Born on the 4th of July, can they?). Talk about "never learn anything"! This just shows how
pointless this breaking of US taboos totally is. The World will continue on just as was
before this article, the moral-less and mind-less US shitbags will keep joining the military
racket "for scholarships" or some shyte like that until US ends up taking on some real
"enemy" who will bring this taboo down but not with words then with "Kinetic Action" that
will turn the tables on US shitbag military.
I have this mental image of US towns looking like Hiroshima with only this Stavro's
Pizza advertisement still standing as a poignant reminder of the God himself having been
recruited into the gang of its former military rapists and killers for profit and for
pleasure.
Dissidents in 1968 justified their resistance to the war on just those grounds -- that the
USA was not directly under attack and was not threatened by Vietnamese aggression. And went
on to say that were the homeland of the USA threatened, then they would man up and defend
their country. So, it's not that they were unpatriotic or cowards, it's that they would only
fight a morally justifiable, defensive war.
Well, now the nation is under siege. Hordes of invaders swarm across our southern border
like a plague of locusts. Hundreds of thousands are shipped here from Africa and the Middle
East and dropped like cockroaches in our midst.
And where do the 1960′s protestors position themselves with respect to these threats
to the homeland today? They meekly acquiesce. They stand down, shrivel and roll over. Now,
when it is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, they still protest
-- but in favor of the invaders.
I understand where the author is coming from. However, WHY does he continue to live in the
US? His tax dollars are funding the war machine. Why not pick up and move elsewhere, for
example Russia, in the case of the Saker?
"Are the powerful of the world going to just sit by and watch their fortunes be destroyed?
Are the potentates of the Banana Republics that Smedley Butler campaigned in any different
in their aims or any less ferocious in their means? No, of course not."
One of the problems the West faces is the post-Nuremberg phenomenon.
The Nazis were scum, and they killed a lot of people, and they lost, and so most of the
leadership got shot. It is what you call revenge, and it is this instinct when channeled
becomes justice. I will not cry for Eichmann, even though he committed no crime, he got what
he deserved.
Now, the West manufactured a load of bullshit to justify the result the West wanted (which
was revenge), and now we are stuck with the bullshit, and people like Saker cite the bullshit
to bad mouth America. Time to dump the bullshit, although the hordes of shitlibs who would
kick and scream about it would be deafening.
@Tulip
Just War doctrine is a handy guide for statesmen, inasmuch as wickedness is often also
stupidity (our warmaking has mostly been an exercise in stupidity). Adherence to JW doctrine
would have kept us out of most of our wars as well as mitigating some of the worst excesses
committed by US forces in those wars.
DON'T .blame the Working Class White Male Teenagers who are signing up .for they face what
is basically this:the career opportunities of a slave ..they are "choosing" from a range of
career choices available to a chattel slave effectively
The real criminals are the adults ..
Among other things .California's technological labor markets have been handed over to the
Chinese and Hindu ."Americans" ..
As long as US sees itself as globo-cop, its military men will not be seen as mercenaries but
as centurions, Team America, to keep the order around the world.
Sometimes, US presence is stabilizing IF the US plays a disinterested neutral role as an
impartial judge. But ever since Jewish Power took over the US, the US military is essentially
a corrupt globo-cop that does the bidding of Kosher Nostra.
First, let's begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that Americans don't
like wars. That is totally false. Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they
absolutely love them. In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the
perceived outcome of that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a
turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations
against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply
"forget" it. And if it is an undeniable defeat (say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed,
most Americans will be categorically opposed to it.
Saner Americans hate war, but Hollywood loves it- particularly when war can be used as an
instrument of Zionist propaganda, or to draw sympathy towards international Jewry and its
enablers.
This has been the case since the First World War. Hymiewood has had a love affair with
American foreign policy ever since Woodrow Wilson entered the "war to end all wars", for the
single reason that American war policy has been international Jewish (and British)
policy.
The fact that the US military stands ready to repel an armed invader makes it unnecessary for
them to actually do so, and for that much they deserve thanks. But the last time a foreign
power attacked the United States was 1812 (Hawaii wasn't a state during WW2).
I won't bash the troops, but I won't thank them, either. Financial considerations aside, I
believe that most of those who join do believe they're doing the right thing. Good
intentions, however, don't bring the victims of unnecessary US wars back to life.
The Saker appears to be taking a lot of incoming fire for having a go at the sainted american
soldier boy most of whom are dumb-full-of-cum twenty-something morons with no conception they
are there to simply advance the megalomaniacal objectives of the insane bloodthirsty jooies.
The dummy american service guy does the bombing of mostly civilians, the dummy american pols
provide the cover, and the dummy american taxpayer picks up the tab. Since censorship by the
vile jooie Cock Cutting Cult is near 100% in the good ole usa, there are very few forums
where this view can be expressed.
Interesting article. There are some points that probably should have been supported with
citations to research. For instance, I suspect the percentage of those who become police
officers for reasons other than money is probably quite a bit higher than 1%. But overall, a
very interesting, non-mainstream presentation.
@Simply
Simon Care to explain WTC Bldg 7? A few whiffs of smoke come out of it and down it goes.
How about the initial pictures of the 20′ diameter hole in the Pentagon facade that a
Boeing 757 supposedly caused? The wings, turbines, 40′ tall fin, bodies could not have
fit through the 20′ hole, yet they are nowhere to be seen in the initial pictures. Care
to concoct an explanation? Oh, that's right. Your hero Senor Freddie says the 20′hole
was caused by some large round object lacking wings, a fin, turbines .possibly a giant flying
burrito.
"(T)he truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of the US since at
least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced Japan to wage
war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan)."
The deal between the government and the citizenry is a contractual agreement, so contract
theory should apply. In respect to your cogent argument, here is my take on that
application.
From Pearl Harbor to the phony Gulf of Tonkein Resolution through the ridiculous Domino
Theory, 911 and WMD, right to the present there is a distinct element of fraud that
invalidates the call to all the ensuing wars and that is Fraud in the Inducement. A contract
is invalid if you are fraudulently induced to engage in it. That gives all GIs and citizens
the moral right of redress against the government that lied them into war. It's been tried in
court (USSC: Sullivan v McNamara) and didn't fly, because the SC sold out.
Governments are corrupt entities, but citizens are free moral agents. Your argument is
correct: when you enlist you assign your moral agency and agree to be used by whomever you
have submitted to. Smedley Butler is a true hero who went to the mountain and returned to
lead people to truth: war is a racket.
I like this article. We need to cultivate a spirit of resistance to the bullshit that
parades before us. It's a scam and we should be cautious of anyone in epaulets.
@Renoman
Absolutely correct. The impoverished countries of Ireland and Scotland along with the
slums of London provided the bulk of the British Imperial Army . These poor sods had the
choice of starvation or a bloody battlefield death and they died by the millions in order to
keep the ruling class rich. I will grant the British upper class officers a pass because so
many of them died in the trenches because of their indoctrination in the "dulce et decora
est" public school education.
@Rex
Little German U-Boats did a lot of sinkings up and down the Florida coastline in WW2, and
put spies onshore on Long Island; both were close enough to call them an attack on The
Homeland.
"None -- because of our military. If the Army, Navy and Air Force were to completely
disband, any number of countries could land troops. Might have a hard time pacifying the
whole country, but they could do a hell of a lot of looting."
Yeah, they're doing a bang-up job stopping the invasion at Tijuanna.
Overall, a good article, IMHO (save a couple of minor details which doesn't change the main
points).
The crux, probably, is (slightly edited):
The very nature of the US economy is based on war and has always been based on war. The
so-called "American way of life" but without wars of aggression has never been attempted in
the past, and it won't be attempted for as long as the US remains the cornerstone of the
AngloZionist Empire and the world hegemony it seeks to impose on the rest of mankind. But
until that day arrives the "American way of life" will always imply wars of aggression and
the mass murder of innocent people whose only "sin" is to dare to not want to be a part of
the Empire.
Now .there IS a point he carefully avoids along his usual angle "Bad Anglos". ALL Empires
have done the same. That's the very definition of Empire. Hehe including his bellowed (from
away, naturally, in USA of all places) Russia.
But let's suppose that the US had no imperial military. So in that case, the US would
face the "threat" (Americans' favorite word) of a Canadian, or Mexican, or Guatemalan, or
Nicaraguan or Chinese! or Russian!! invasion?
Clearly, you have no idea of what the military invasion of a country really entails, nor
have you any sense of what the consequences of such actions have been historically.
@Jett
Rucker It surprised me that the Saker did not acknowledge the millions of draftee's --
not just we who are of the Vietnam generation, but going back to the war of northern
aggression. The military draft is akin to slavery, in that the other choices are jail or
fleeing the country.
I don't need or want any thanks for my time in hell -- especially 40-50 years late. I was
part of an obscene violation of another countries sovereignty, and some of what I did and saw
still haunts me to this day. Many other vets I know feel the same way.
Aside from that one omission, Saker is pretty much spot on. Of course, as several
commentators show, the truth is not always welcome. Smedly Butler is one of my military
heroes for speaking truth to power. The so called war on terror is a wet dream come true for
the mic we were warned about so many years ago
As for those out there who are still denying what was obvious to some on 9-11-2001, a new
book out could be very enlightening. 9/11 Unmasked takes various aspects of the official
"story" and presents the evidence that puts the lie to that "story" Read with an open mind if
you dare.
It is petty to identify all soldiers as active war criminals or as enablers. In this country
the military actions are ordered by elected representatives. The military men obey the orders
of civilian leaders. No doubt many question the wisdom of the orders given but they accept
that it is not their decision where and when to fight. God help the world if decisions were
made by military hierarchies.
Unfortunately effective military action requires hierarchies. If every soldier made his
own tactical decisions a military force would be ineffective. Most would run or quit when the
ordinance was incoming.
Many join the military because there are limited economic opportunities, and there are
some who are rather dull and wouldn't fare well in market competition for labor. Don't we all
find employment because we need some money and there are limited ways to earn. Personally I'd
like to be an astrophysicist and spend my working days on interesting and fulfilling
problems. It would also be pleasant if all tedious tasks were done by others. Alas the market
for this profession is tiny. I had to work where there was a market for my services and I
experienced plenty of drudgery including working for idiotic bosses.
The soldier or sailor lives in a kind of monastic order. He must obey the hierarchy even
when these leaders are incompetent. He faces the possibility of death or serious injury even
if he supplies soda machines on a ship. Some respect is due to one who accepts this
discipline. He accepts, by his actions, the primacy of civilian control of war-making. He
should be censored if he commits atrocities but can't be held accountable for political
decisions by others.
Jeering at sargeants or lieutenants might feel good but it is a fatuous frame of mind. We
always have needed soldiers and that is not going to change.
One legitimate post WW II action was the first Gulf War. Bush the elder received the
congressional approval. At the time almost everyone believed there was finite oil in the
world. Iraq invaded Kuwait then massed troops on the Saudi border. That was a threat to our
perceived interests. Once Saddam was vanquished Bush had the sense to refrain from invading
Iraq. I don't like Bush I much but he did the right things given the knowledge available at
the time.
@Patricus
Yes but wasn't it the US dominated proceedings that established the precedent that "just
following orders" was an unacceptable defence and wasn't it a US dominated military coalition
punishment that caused many thousands of deaths by starvation and exposure post WWII?
@Johnny
Rico Yes, you in particular should ignore the comment. Excellent screen name, though.
Just read the Starship Troopers book for the first time earlier this year and enjoyed it
thoroughly, though I was surprised how short it was. Would have liked a series of books along
those lines.
until US ends up taking on some real "enemy" who will bring this taboo down but not with
words then with "Kinetic Action" that will turn the tables on US shitbag military.
Yeah, I see them all lining up outside my house right now!
No, if America goes down, it will be from enemies within.
Enirely concur with your lucid article. One might add (perhaps in another article), that for
the simple reason of being an empire, the US is a violent rogue state. After all, empires are
ipso facto violent, since they must keep a variety of other states and peoples under
permanent control and this can only be achieved by way of violence.
Here, an empire works exactly like a maffia family: the boss is the supreme authority
deciding over life and death. Whoever stands up to him is annihilated, mutilated, or
humiliated. In inverse order, these are the three stages of violence at the disposal of the
boss. If he wants to preserve his authority, he is compelled to use these techniques, which
makes him, in a sense also the victim of the system he represents.
So it is with the US empire. The leader in the White Madhouse has no choice but to export
mass murder to all corners of the world. Not doing so would entail the collapse of the
imperial system.
And don't forget WTC Bldg 7, which was not hit by a fuel-leaking plane at all, and yet
pancaked down just like the towers. And by the way, a BBC reporter reported the bldg 7
collapse occurred -- past tense -- 20 minutes BEFORE the collapse happened. Oops.
@Tulip I
would not disagree with you completely, although I doubt that the Chinese and the Russians
would have the foresight to finish off the US cesspool when given an internal chance.
But my main point was that the human-looking smelly excrement always calls upon the higher
authority of God when doing the worst possible crimes. This is where US excells even over its
Western "partners" -- the utilitarianism of religion -- that is employing God in the
collective endeavours of rape, pillage and murder. This is the main reason I am
anti-religious although not atheist at all.
"God bless you for your service of rape, pillage and murder for our shared profit and
enjoyment."
Stop accusing the war profiteers for the wars and understand that it is the whole horrible
society.
@Patricus
The "First Gulf War" was as illegitimate and illegal an operation as all the other US acts of
international piracy during the 20th century. Bush I is as much a war criminal as Bush II.
The entire First Gulf War was a set-up, a trap, designed to give the US a permanent
foothold in the region. At the expense of thousands of human lives. During an interview the
US diplomat April Glaspie had with Saddam immediately before he invaded Kuweit, she did not
voice any objections to his designs. Thus Saddam was led to believe he could count on US
support.
Yet mind you, I do not suggest Saddam would be a more decent person than either Bush II or
his daddy. A guy like Saddam, who appoints as his official food taster the son of the palace
cook is truly a perverted individual. And like most politicians in high office everywhere and
at all times, he was also a psychopath and did not shirk from killing fellow human beings.
Often for futile reasons.
@Patricus
"He must obey the hierarchy even when these leaders are incompetent. He faces the possibility
of death or serious injury even if he supplies soda machines on a ship. Some respect is due
to one who accepts this discipline. "
So a person voluntarily gives up his/her freedom of action and freedom to make moral
choices and "some respect is due" ? You, sir, are a brainwashed fool and you deserve to be
killed by one of these lazy, amoral, toadies. Your justification for these losers to join the
military is because they lack the confidence and ability to feed themselves any other way and
that they have such low levels of morality that they would gladly give up those crumbs for
shit on a shingle?
And the "humans" (I use the term loosely) who do this are due respect? These lazy, amoral,
shit eaters would gladly kill other people who have made the not so difficult choice to use
their god-given skills and abilities to survive in a peaceful manner trying to avoid harming
others.
I say better these these lazy, murderous, automatons, these moral mutants, this pestilence
on the human race be enclosed in a stadium and encouraged to fight each other until they are
all dead except one -- then castrate him/ (or her in the case of Hillary Clinton.)
I say people like you, Patricus, who ignorantly give them "due respect" should voluntarily
live in an active war zone where you can experience first hand what the world would be like
if your "heroes " were unrestrained. That would show them "due respect" instead of
encouraging them to bring down their hell on peaceful other people you do not know or care
about
The US instigated coup was in line with Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" delusions of the
US having to control Eurasia especially Ukraine in order to reduce Russia to the role of a
regional power. The EU piggybacked on that coup by having the Maidan regime sign on to the
European Neighborhood Policy thus reducing Ukraine to the role of a EU dependent non-member
state.
This article in The Intercept provides incontrovertible proof that Zionists wanted Trump
to win the election and that Chuck Schumer, their representative in Congress used the DNC and
Facebook to help him. It also demonstrates how Chuck Schumer supports Republican Presidents
and policies denying the will of many in his party even a Democratic President and betraying
millions of voters on the Left to forward the Zionist agenda in each and every case. I would
call this collusion and subversion of Democracy. Everything else Schumer does not to lose his
choice position as Senate minority leader is window dressing, lip service and a charade.
Trump often refers to his "leverage" in approaching geopolitics as a business negotiation,
and yet he is effectively hamstrung with two countries (Israel and KSA) where US leverage
should be overwhelming due to security guarantees. The complex web of influence and court
politics will prevent coherent decisive moves, which presumably he refers to when stating he
would rather "stay out" of the Middle East. It's a teachable moment, an opportunity for the
sort of truth-telling necessary to promote a draining of the swamp - the chance to publicly
acknowledge that nothing can be done because the interests of power blocs within the two
countries are embedded directly in the US political system itself.
Obama had the opportunity for truth-telling early in his administration when he could have
acknowledged that a single-payer health care system is not possible in America at this time -
not because it isn't rational and effective but because powerful domestic interests will not
allow it.
@Frederick
V. Reed "Regarding Nine-Eleven: Until someone who actually know the business of
controlled demolition shows what specifically would have been needed, used how without being
noticed, to produce the collapse, it will remain just another empty conspiracy theory."
I wonder if Fred's house burnt down under suspicious circumstances, e.g., there was some
evidence that an accelerant was involved; and neighbors reported suspicious activity near the
house before the fire started; and then Fred had the debris hauled away before it could be
examined; and as a matter of public record Fred announced beforehand that his house might
burn down; and Fred was known to be having financial problems; and Fred was caught telling a
lie about the circumstances; and Fred sought to collect a huge insurance payment, etc.; would
the state police fire marshal dismiss it all as an "empty conspiracy theory". I think not;
rather, I think Fred would be in some serious trouble.
@James
Speaks "The burning jet fuel caused the floor trusses to sag."
No it didn't; most or all of the jet fuel burnt up in a cloud outside of the
buildings.
By the way, as a threshold issue, if 9/11 was "legitimate" why did the perpetrators have
to go through the trouble and take the risk of putting imposter Hymie Brown on national TV,
falsely claiming him to be the "architect" and "project engineer" of the towers, and having
him tell lies about the towers?
@Frederick
V. Reed The only interesting question remaining about 911 is whether the same group who
planned the destruction of the twin towers also demolished WTC 7. Even though all three
supposedly succumbed to fire, WTC 7 resembles a classic demolition while 1 and 2 exploded.
These were obviously different techniques at work.
I began to wonder if some rival faction within the establishment demolished WTC 7 just to
spoil the cover story for the Bin Laden angle for leverage in other areas, or the did the
perpetrators themselves do it so the American people would have no plausible deniability when
the day of reckoning finally comes? After all, what sort of infantile and wicked population
could allow the crimes committed by its government after such a preposterous false flag
operation? Surely, they deserve to be stripped of everything they have (especially Social
Security ;).
@SafeNow
"And don't forget WTC Bldg 7, which was not hit by a fuel-leaking plane at all, and yet
pancaked down just like the towers. And by the way, a BBC reporter reported the bldg 7
collapse occurred -- past tense -- 20 minutes BEFORE the collapse happened. Oops."
This is truly the deciding argument for me, how can anyone not believe a conspiracy was
afoot that day when the BBC got their signals crossed and reported a completely unlikely
event before it actually happened?
Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but if the government is sending people to sow confusion
on the collapse of these buildings it is a criminal offense and should be prosecuted as such.
Bush clearly intended to invade Iraq in 1990 and the Clinton presidency merely put this on
hold for 9 years until Bush II was elected. The son was little more than a puppet for his
father, his father's donors and his father's money. Bush II was merely an alcoholic bum. It
was clearly his Dad's oil interests controlling him.
@Z-man
The twin towers were were 110 stories high and were very strongly built, both were designed
to withstand two strikes by Boeing 707′s. The biggest hole in your "collapse" theory is
the lack of a debris pile. With the collapse of a building that high the debris pile should
have been somewhere around 14 stories high. The debris pile was virtually missing. Have a
look at the linked photo and tell me where the debris piles are. This photo was taken before
any debris could have been removed as Building 7 is still standing.
@L. Ross
@L. Ross: so you believe that a bunch of angry fundamentalists managed to outsmart all 17 US
intelligence agencies and those of NATO and Israel, the National Security Council, the
Transportation Safety Administration, Air Traffic Control, and Dick Cheney, hijacked four US
airliners on one morning, brought down three World Trade Center skyscrapers, destroyed that
part of the Pentagon where research was underway into the missing $2.3 trillion, and caused
the morons in Washington to blame Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia?
If so, you urgently need to educate yourself. If not, tell us why it was not a controlled
demolition.
The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this
Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, ( This well appointed Suite
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm
according to the London Times): nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy
lap dances before their mission to meet Allah
Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on
four planes. And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air
defense system the slip.
Unfazed by leaving their "How to Fly a Passenger Jet" guide in the car at the airport,
they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to
collapse completely
Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two and the world
watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically -- through their own mass -- at
free-fall speed, for the first time in history.
Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using
explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground only
to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI
Meanwhile down in Washington
Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with
all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a
Boeing. Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides
to show off a little
Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of
the world's most heavily defended building
all without a single shot being fired . or ruining the nicely mowed lawn and all at a
speed just too fast to capture on video
Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania
So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower
to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later
And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a
Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants except for the standard
issue Muslim terrorists bandana
Further south in Florida
President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read "My Pet Goat" to a class
full of primary school children shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be
in imminent danger
In New York
World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the
buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously
While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their
heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they
so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination
And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven
of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports
And If you don't believe this, you are a conspiracy theorist.
James Corbett presents this 5 minute parody of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11
September 11, 2013 Twelve Years of War, Lies and Deception
Twelve years after the 9/11 attacks, no credible independent investigation has been done
to find out what really happened on that day and who was responsible.
I am amazed that there seem still to be people who believe the official 9/11 propaganda
bull*.
They don't believe the Gospel According To NIST. And I find it hard to believe you believe
they believe it ** .
'They' are shills & operators. The 911 myth must be defended at all costs – the
empire insists. For the one's who might genuinely believe, no need to waste time answering
them as they're too stupid to matter.
@Simply
Simon "Every large controlled demolition I witnessed shows massive explosions at ground
level." Not true
Internal pillars can be taken out without showing any evidence of demolition from the outside
of a building.
Every large controlled demolition that I have witnessed did not show "massive explosions" at
ground level, but rather momentary flashes of light, with the building then collapsing into
its own footprint.
@Agent76
Thanks Agent 76. That video is actually amazingly funny -- and, partly because it's so funny,
it packs a devastating punch. Seeing all the loose ends and nonsensical inconsistencies
bundled together and delivered in fast-forward mode is hugely convincing.
@Z-man
Your Quote
Two WTC went down first even though it was hit second because the plane hit lower and at an
angle with more damage to more floors and more mass above to accelerate the collapse.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Congratulation.
You hit the bulls eye of the shit.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Watch the collapse again.
In both cases collapse started with the uppermost floor falling on the floor below.
And so because second tower was hit close to hour later and the position of the impact was
several stories lower, the heat influence on the uppermost connection of trusses was
considerably lower than in first hit tower.
Simple thermodynamics will confirm it to you.
..
When you will watch the collapse of first building (second hit)
You will notice the part of the building was tilting, before cascading begin.
That contradicts laws of physics.
..It was controlled demolition with exploding charges at trusses connections.
There should not be any doubt about it.
@Tulip
So then, you do not have proof that the Germans killed those which they are said to have
killed.
But hey, you do have the almighty name calling. I suggest giving Zionist TeeVee a rest.
As for German aggression, you're wrong on that too. Sorry to keep posting the same rebuttals below, Ron. But as you see, we get the same
ignorant claims.
facts:
- USSR invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, invaded & annexed parts of
Romania, invaded Iran, invaded northern Norway and the Danish island of Bornholm, yet the
'Allies' did nothing.
- Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory,
was engaged in atrocities against German civilians. Yet the 'Allies' did nothing.
- The "neutral" US had been attacking German U-boats & shipping, while supplying both
Britain & the USSR long before Germany's declaration of war on the US.
- Brits invaded & were mining Norway at Narvik before Germany arrived & stopped
it.
- France had positioned 2 million soldiers on the Belgian border, and the BEF had almost
another half million.
- France and England were already violating Belgian and Dutch "neutrality" with impunity by
flying aircraft over the lowlands.
- It is important to remember that France had already invaded Germany, the Saar in 1939, and
that throughout this entire period Hitler was begging Churchill to negotiate a return to the
status quo. Did Britain initiate both world wars? : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10458 Responsibility for WW2 : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7544
Introduction to HITLER'S WAR: http://www.unz.com/article/introduction-to-hitlers-war/ Who started bombing civilians first: Germany or Great Britain, Britain:https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172 Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999 http://www.codoh.com
@Tulip
Hitler Germany conquered Poland in a few weeks, snatched Norway from under Churchill's nose,
and beat France in three weeks.
About Churchill's stupidity in military matters: Gallipoli, and see what the commander of the
British army thought about him:
Colonel Roderick Macleod, D.S.O., M.C., and Dennis Kelly, 'TIME UNGUARDED The Ironside
Diaries 1937- 1940′, New York, 1963
Hitler never wanted war:
A J P Taylor, 'The Origins of the Second World War', 1961, 1967, Londen
German economy:
from 1933 until 1936 unemployment was reduced from six to one million.
FDR's New Deal did hardly reduce USA unemployment.
Hitler's big mistake was to underestimate the power of international jewry:
Jean-Noël Jeanneney, 'Francois de Wendel en République, L'Argent et le Pouvoir
1914-1940, Paris 1976
Ludendorff already understood quite well that the allies wanted to destroy Germany
Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918
And see
Patrick J. Buchanan, 'Churchill, Hitler and "The unnecessary war", How Britain lost its
empire and the west lost the world', New York, 2008
"... The U.S.A. is a powerful empire. It is expansionist. It's no different from the British, Soviets, Chinese, etc. None of this is new information to anyone. If it is, you are retarded for just now coming to these conclusions. You should have understood all of this by your early twenties. ..."
"... Generally speaking, political reform follows cultural and economic change – not vice versa ..."
"... It would seem in the Soviet Union cultural and economic also followed political reform. One could sustain the same regarding Peronist Argentina until the early 1950s, the German Empire in 1871 which created the framework for profound and vast cultural and economic change, Italy since 1861, and so on. Thus, I am not so sure about the validity of the historical "law" you have tentatively formulated. ..."
"... Every state must have its peoples, in one way or another, support its geopolitical operations. In democracies, this comes down to applying psychological pressures so that the citizenry votes for the desired programs. ..."
"... Support can be achieved even in the face of strong initial opposition, such as WWI and the Iraq war. As Saker mentions, the support can be eroded when a war drags on too long without victory, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan. ..."
@Hans
Vogel You are probably onto something here.
Especially with:
all, empires are ipso facto violent, since they must keep a variety of other states and
peoples under permanent control and this can only be achieved by way of violence.
If he wants to preserve his authority, he is compelled to use these techniques, which
makes him, in a sense also the victim of the system he represents.
Not doing so would entail the collapse of the imperial system.
This is like something an undergraduate would write. It's like taking history and running it
through an "all I needed to know I learned in kindergarten" filter.
The U.S.A. is a powerful empire. It is expansionist. It's no different from the British,
Soviets, Chinese, etc. None of this is new information to anyone. If it is, you are retarded
for just now coming to these conclusions. You should have understood all of this by your
early twenties.
We thank the veterans because, at an instinctual level; they are the warriors of our
tribe. Guilt over expansion isn't sincere; we know that Russians have and would eagerly
engage in the same behavior, were they as powerful. "The weak must do what they must."
I read his stupid justification for living in our country. We need a law forbidding
foreigners from speaking on our political affairs. It is not, and never will be, their call.
The author is clearly a Russian nationalist, which is a great thing, but that belongs in
Russia.
American nationalism alone should exist here. The entire problem is that there are so many
paper Americans here that our country has become corrupted beyond its original purpose; even
before WWII, (((Americans))) had power, which is the reason for our poor actions against
Japan. I've long supported dismantling the empire, but only because it is impoverishing our
people, and we need those troops here to eject the millions of invaders, and guard the
border. The empire is also a tool for (((you know who))).
Finally, a foreigner criticizing the U.S. military, while living in the U.S.A., is like
going into your neighbor's home and accusing him of being an alcoholic. He may very well be,
but it's not your place to say so. Once you cross over our border, any allegiance to a
foreign power needs to end. Even if we make one of those Matryoshka dolls of your mother
being plowed by one of our negroes, you better keep quiet. Because in truth, you are not
wanted here. There is no benefit to me for Russians to be here.
Heritage Americans understand that these veterans are our hoplites, regardless of the wars
they have fought in. If you don't have that national bond, it's time to admit it, pack up,
and go back to a nation that you can identify with. One where you don't feel the urge to talk
trash about the most brilliant saints of the Church. Yes Catholicism is lost, and the pope a
hopeless cuck, but unlike the author, I'm not Russian. Converting to Russian Orthodoxy, even
inside the U.S., is a process rife with hostility.
They have to go back. If you value Peter the Great more than Thomas Jefferson, great, but you
have to go back.
The important questions–which (one is tempted to say "of course") he does not
raise, let alone attempt to answer–are: (i) how did this sorry state of affairs come
about; and (ii) what is to be done to correct the situation?
Ah, you see .that's not Saker's job. One of posters here already said what it is. Scroll
up and you'll find it with ease.
And, those are definitely THE QUESTIONS. The second more important than the first.
Any ideas of yours?
Probably related to
.what failures or refusals on the part of the American people to enforce what provisions
of their own Constitution have led to this pass?
I guess. I believe it has something to do with what happened to Rome once upon a time.
Or any such entity.
Even if we simply focus on military: comparing militia from The American Revolutionary War
with early Roman military and current US military with legions of, say, Augustus.
Complex topics, of course.
And, there IS one aditional element too Saker types will never touch: is there a need for
a World Policeman? I think there is (human nature, nukes and such). The catch is, of course,
who 's going to be that one. Or better, who is going to control the cop. Even better,
who and how, is going to control the controllers.
Sounds complicated so irrelevant for most posters here. Better to focus on "bad Anglos" or
"terrible Joos". Or whatever.
Saker's angle, and the resident "Team Russia" of course is, no need for World Policeman.
They'd like three equal cops policing their own parts of the world. Saker cop "managing" that
region from Vladivostok to, say .current German/Austrian/Italian/Greek border.
Chinese even "better": area up and including Tasmania and Stuart Island.
Hehe not that they'll ever admit that.
If your country is weak, the credibility of your criticisms is comporomised.
Of course, you don't accept the U.S. military. However, you have zero authority to employ the
Alinskyite tactic of "hold them to their own ideals."
This is why the only foreigners besides tourists and students, who should be allowed here,
are those who benefit Heritage Americans.
Russia is most definitely the "good guy" overall. I've been saying that for years, but we
criticize the Neocons and even more influential (((neocons))), not our own soldiers. It
doesn't matter if they've murdered entire towns overseas, not to most people. This is
indisputably true for every country on Earth.
Soldiers rescue you when you're in a giant fish bowl
that has been hit by a cat. 5 hurricane, or when a tornado levels your town. They protect you
from invasion under normative circumstances; the current circumstances, of the military and
government standing by while millions of third world invaders flood our land, isn't a typical
one, and even then, it is only made possible by (((propagandists)))
@wholy1
Lots of people escaped to Canada, for example rather than serve the empire. Would you rather
murder people in Vietnam for the corrupt U.S. "government" (or be killed by someone defending
their country from invaders), or go to Canada? I would've chosen Canada.
@Fhilaerene
"We need a law forbidding foreigners from speaking on our political affairs."
You are a fool. I think you might be a good individualist though. At least you have a sense of self. Quit
trying to speak for "Americans" (Who left you in charge of defining who is "American"?)and
instead, speak for yourself. It would sound much less stupid.
It's true that many join the military for benefits. This is esp true of Negroes and Browns.
But many whites join because they like the culture of Brotherhood. And these types tend to
be patriotic and gung-ho. Of course, they are often clueless about how their patriotic
feelings are being manipulated by globalists.
It'd be nice to have a law that says that while all men must fight to defend the US from
invasion, all overseas ventures must be voted on by men in the military.
In the US the military is deified, in other saner countries it is at best respected and
supported and in some countries it is feared and avoided.
The US is a country, that has been at war for most of its life. I believe only a mere 25
years of not waging or participating in a war. Hence its reverence for the military.
And in wars a lot of money can be made, lets not forget that
"We need a law forbidding foreigners from speaking on our political affairs."
No what we need is a friggen law that imposes death penalty on any US citizen ever leaving
the US.
The US is the main culprit of the misery and despair throughout the world, especially the ME
too. Come to think of it, we should have for Israel citizens too.
@Harold
Smith Indeed! Seem to me you must have read Kafka.
Else we use the one below.
Someone said something like : We change reality faster than you perceive reality has changed.
Even a war fought for the openly crass reason of protecting one's own economic interests
is hardly a uniquely evil event. It may be a deplorable fact of life, but you have to ask
yourself: What else did you think was going to happen? Are the powerful of the world going
to just sit by and watch their fortunes be destroyed?
Is the mob just going to sit by and watch as someone decides not to pay their protection
money ? "what else did you think was going to happen?" Of course they're going to place a
horse's head on their door step and if that doesn't work they'll put two bullet holes in his
eye sockets.
ID, don't forget to thank your mafia soldier for his service on Veteran's day! (Oh, and don't
forget to leave that protection money in the bucket behind the door like we talked
about.)
how can anyone not believe a conspiracy was afoot that day
A conspiracy is two or more people working together to commit a criminal act. The official
narrative of 9-11 is a conspiracy theory. Not a credible one, but conspiracy theory none the
less.
What a snarky article by a weenie who lacked the cajones to serve.
When I joined the military in the mid-70′s, it wasn't for the benefits or the money;
neither was particularly attractive, and with a lottery number north of 250, I wasn't at risk
of being drafted. I joined for three reasons–first, my dad had served in WWII in the
infantry, so there was a bit of family history; second, because I hated Marxism and the
Commies who threatened to bury us; and third, because I considered it my civic duty to serve.
So, I found myself in in a nuclear ordnance unit in Europe, helping keep several hundred
nukes at the ready to fly in an easterly direction to kill Commies if necessary. Of course,
the whole idea wasn't ever to vaporize eastern Europe, rather, it was to deter the Russians
and their allies from attacking western Europe. Mission accomplished.
As was the case with NATO in the 70′s, the primary mission of the military isn't to
fight wars; rather, it's to deter others from starting a war in the first place. As was the
case with the Commies 40 years ago, if we didn't have a strong deterrent force (and the
demonstrated will to use it) there are plenty of Mohammedans, Chinese and others who would
dearly love to subdue us. And blowhards like Saker would be out of business, probably in a
concentration camp somewhere, or dead. Unless, that is, they became collaborators.
I do agree, however, on one thing: I didn't and don't need any Thank-you's for my service.
I don't expect thanks for paying my income tax or driving on the right side of the road;
those are civic duties. And to me, service in the military is a civic duty as well for
able-bodied males. After I got out of the Army, all I ever wanted a modicum of respect for
having performed my civid duty–not to be derided and called a fool or a fascist for
having served. But a civilian again and a student in the late '70s, that's all I heard from
my smartypants lib classmates. It wasn't until 9/11, when people perceived (rightly or
wrongly) that their pansy butts were at risk unless somebody was willing to fight or deter
bad guys, that people started saying "Thank you for your service."
Saker, instead of calling people who served fools and fascists, calls us money-grubbing
mercenaries. It would be annoying coming from anybody other than a guy who believes that 9/11
was some kind of CIA plot. My cat is smarter than that. And even Saker is smarter than to
spout his malarky to a veteran's face.
" since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan). "
Since FDR is his 1940 election promised not to 'send USA boys overseas unless the USA was
attacked'.
On the Sunday of the attack the America First Committee understood quite well, as Lindbergh
writes, he got a phone call: 'he (FDR) got us into the (European) war through the back
door'.
Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh', New York,
1970
Since the end of 1939 the USA navy was waging war in the Atlantic against Germany, but Hitler
had given strict orders that his navy and airforce should not give FDR a pretext for war.
Not quite sure, but I think
Patrick Beesly, 'Very special intelligence', 1977 Londen
describes the very close cooperation in the Atlantic between GB, navy and airforce, and FDR's
navy and airforce, beginning at the end of 1939.
There was one incident between a German submarine and a USA navy vessel that nearly was
serious enough for FDR to declare war.
Few people, including myself until recently, know about Hitler's attack on Russia, and
Japanese war aims.
Japan had promised Hitler to attack the USSR if Hitler had taken Moscow and was at the Volga,
thus the desperate fight over Stalingrad.
Robert J.C. Butow, 'JAPAN'S Decision to Surrender', Stanford, 1954
F.W. Deakin and G.R. Storry, 'The case of Richard Sorge', New York, 1966
If indeed Japan would have attacked Russia, I doubt.
In any case, Hitler was very pleased with Pearl Harbour, really a surprise to him, it
seems.
That FDR's provocation to Japan caused that Japan remained neutral towards the USSR until the
beginning of 1945, the USSR annihition of the Kwantung Army, I wonder if Hitler ever realised
this.
@Fhilaerene
" The U.S.A. is a powerful empire. It is expansionist. It's no different from the British,
Soviets, Chinese, "
It is quite different from what the British empire was.
The perfidous Britons built their empire not just on naked force, but on diplomacy, cunning,
deceit, blackmail, bribery, propaganda, etc., than the USA.
British people indeed were outraged when Gordon was killed at Khartoum.
Far more outrage, is my impression, than USA people about the Vietnam defeat.
@Simply
Simon The Empire State Building has a steel frame designed using moment distribution. It
was being designed as it was being built. Steel and labor were cheap during the Great
Depression. Thus, the building could be overdesigned, and it was.
@Fhilaerene
"It doesn't matter if they've murdered entire towns overseas, not to most people." It might
well have mattered to those who have been murdered and it should it should matter to the rest
of us. Soldiers and their political masters should not get a free pass for wanton murder.
@Intelligent
Dasein 'Most soldiers all throughout history have been mercenaries'
Standing armies were not generally a thing untill comparatively recently
Bravo Saker! All your points are undeniably true and very clearly stated. I salute your
courage in publishing these truths in the face of the world's greatest disinformation and
propaganda machine – the US government.
The military is the huge death squad of the evil US Empire. These are the oligarch's tools
for murder and pillage around the world. The US Military is the most shameful group in the
world today, composed of those willing to kill their brothers and sisters for money.
Saker, the very nature of life itself is based on war and has always been based on
war. Problem?
We're chemical machines, that have been built over 4 billion years, and we've been
tested in what can be called quite accurately a 'Gladiator War'; where the machines went into
the battle and if you won, your DNA replicated, and that's all it was was a war.
@Z-man
"The two planes were two large armored napalm tanks"
Except that planes aren't built like tanks or else they wouldn't lift off the ground. And
their engines don't run on napalm.
There's no way for a large plane traveling at low speed to go right through a building. It
would have crashed to pieces and plummeted to the ground where it would have exploded and
burned down.
@The
Alarmist I joined to shoot all sorts of weaponry, to use explosive, to rappel out of
helicopters, to call in close air support, etc. All great, fun stuff. Unfortunately , mixed
in with that, was a lot of 3 am spit shining shoes and ironing ponchos for a junk on the bunk
inspection at 0800.
@Realist
In fact there has NEVER been any occasion since the War of 1812 when members of the US armed
forces had to fight to protect their "homeland" – which is impressive when you remember
that the USA has been at war for 222 out of 239 years since 1776.
As for the War of 1812, while it is true that the British invaded the USA and burned some
of Washington, the Americans were responsible for the outbreak of war. President James
Madison declared war on Great Britain, when negotiations were still possible. At the time,
Britain was at war with the empire of Napoleon so the US declaration of war must have seemed
to the British a treacherous stab in the back.
@James
Speaks I suppose the proximity of the jets cause WTC7 to experience slenderness too. Or
was it that the BBC announcing WTC's demise 20 minutes before it actually happened was caused
by "kl/r"?
@Rex
Little Rex, may I point out that it was the US government (in the person of President
Madison) who declared war on Great Britain – not vice versa? Until then there were serious disagreements, but they could have been negotiated. It was
the US government that chose to have a war – as it has often done since.
@Wally
The Saker is a Russian. He can probably give you the body count of the Red Army on the
Eastern Front.
The Nazis were bastards, and they started an aggressive war (and by that, I mean
"aggressive" from the standpoint of the victors, unlike say Iraq), they killed a lot of
people, and they lost. You don't even have to bring (((them))) into to equation to conclude
that the Allies didn't hang enough people when they had the chance, but I guess someone had
to be left to rebuild.
@Tom
Welsh You are either fighting over there or you are fighting in your homeland. When you
stop fighting over there, you end up fighting in your homeland. Putin wants war and
instability in Ukraine, because he knows Russia is next.
America has just done the same thing every other successful Empire has done since the dawn
of time, suggesting a natural line of development in human civilizations. All of America's
enemies simply want America out of the way so they can do the same thing America has done. If
I were Russian or Chinese, I would want the same thing Saker calls for. But let's face it, a
second-rate gorilla wanting the Alpha gorilla to die is a different sentiment from the
internationalist liberal humanitarian bullshit Saker cites in his article.
@Fhilaerene
"We need a law forbidding foreigners from speaking on our political affairs. It is not, and
never will be, their call. The author is clearly a Russian nationalist, which is a great
thing, but that belongs in Russia".
A peculiar argument. As the author presumably believes in the political equality of all
human beings, he would no doubt agree that Russia needs a law forbidding foreigners from
speaking about Russian political affairs. (Would that apply just to foreigners speaking while
in Russia, or in their own countries?)
@peterAUS
" is there a need for a World Policeman? I think there is (human nature, nukes and such). The
catch is, of course, who's going to be that one. Or better, who is going to control the cop.
Even better, who and how, is going to control the controllers".
That sounds quite clever and sophisticated, but it leads nowhere because it's fairly
obvious that there is no answer to the questions "who's going to be the World Policeman?" and
"Who's going to control the cop?"
For practical purposes we can regard the idea of a "World Policemen" is obviously
impractical. Even if such a regime could be brought about, it would likely lead to the very
worst tyranny ever – and perhaps the first one impossible to escape or overthrow.
Therefore we need to return to the real world and consider alternatives. At present I see
nothing better than Messrs Putin and Xi's concept of a multilateral world order, regulated by
international laws, in which nations show respect and consideration for one another.
If anyone thinks that's not good enough, consider that the world is not some schoolroom
where we are posed questions with predesigned, cut-and-dried answers. In real life, we
sometimes encounter questions that have no simple answers.
@anonymous
Your comment displays a very common misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
The species that survive best and reproduce most in a given environment are sometimes
called "the fittest". At present – although perhaps not for much longer – Homo
sapiens has been very successful in terms of fitness for perhaps 10,000 years. People tend to
ascribe this mostly to our large brain and intelligence, but they err in thinking that the
main evolutionary advantage of intelligence is the ability to invent weapons and other
machines.
In fact, humans have thriven mainly because of their social organization and ability to
cooperate.
Which is why any theory that proposes vicious competition between individual human beings
or human groups is flying in the face of Darwin. We succeed or fail as teams. Cheating and
murdering your team-mates is not a recipe for success.
@Anon
"But many whites join because they like the culture of Brotherhood".
That reminds me, rightly or wrongly, of something else. Oh yes, here it is:
"Unless a man has talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of
what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape
individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, "to be free from
freedom." It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank-and-file Nazis declared themselves not
guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and
maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the
Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility?"
Saker,
Go fuck yourself. You are not an American so you are hardly in a position to say why
Americans serve in OUR military. I might add that the so-called "illegal wars" and covert
actions were primarily fought against the Communist madness YOUR people unleashed on the
world or primitive Islamists who have always been our enemies.
@Wally
'"But in a world of empires, the US empire preferable to the German, Japanese, Russian, and
Spanish."
'Really?
'Please explain'.
You really don't get it? Isn't it obvious that being burned to death by good red-blooded
democratic American napalm or white phosphorus is far better than being killed by a German,
Japanese, Russian or Spanish weapon?
It's the kindly good intentions that make all the difference!
@Intelligent
Dasein @Intelligent Dasein: so why on earth do you read Saker's articles? Why on earth do
you then proceed to pollute this thread with your insane vituperations and bore us all to
death? If you want to impress us with the use of vulgarities, there is no need to dedicate an
essay to it.
@ThreeCranes
The same cabal that had been denouncing young Americans conscripted to fight in Vietnam as
"baby killers" -- the same ones always disproportionately underrepresented in our armed
forces -- are from what I see on Fox News the ones behind the jingoism serving only Israel
today. Cops were vilified as "pigs." The American flag was walked on and burned with glee.
Now we have "wounded warrior" ads running all the time, while MAGA is making Wall Street
richer and creating new jobs for anyone but the young white men who mostly wear the uniforms
and do the dying so fine young Israeli boys need not.
All in all this "thank you for your service" is obviously well meaning from everyday
people, but it is nothing short of grinning mockery coming from that same bunch -- the "war
party" of neo-lib/neo-con foreign agents -- who only yesterday were denouncing our soldiers
as "baby killers." There is no left/right when it comes to bankrupting America for
Israel.
Now on Fox News we get Trotskyite neocons elevating those same "baby killers" and "pigs"
in uniform to hero status, and in preparation for the coming martial law, authoring the
thoughts of the gullible with the concepts and catchwords of the police state. "Baby killers"
and "pigs" alchemically have become heroes-in-uniform first-responders putting their boots on
the ground in harm's way, whose muh brothers/muh mission training sanctions incinerating
civilians IDF style, who won't hesitate enforcing shelter-in-place orders back home at gun
point even on their own kind.
@ThreeCranes
The same cabal that had been denouncing young Americans conscripted to fight in Vietnam as
"baby killers" -- the same ones always disproportionately underrepresented in our armed
forces -- are from what I see on Fox News the ones behind the jingoism serving only Israel
today. Cops were vilified as "pigs." The American flag was walked on and burned with glee.
Now we have "wounded warrior" ads running all the time, while MAGA is making Wall Street
richer and creating new jobs for anyone but the young white men who mostly wear the uniforms
and do the dying so fine young Israeli boys need not.
All in all this "thank you for your service" is obviously well meaning from everyday
people, but it is nothing short of grinning mockery coming from that same bunch -- the "war
party" of neo-lib/neo-con foreign agents -- who only yesterday were denouncing our soldiers
as "baby killers." There is no left/right when it comes to bankrupting America for
Israel.
Now on Fox News we get Trotskyite neocons elevating those same "baby killers" and "pigs"
in uniform to hero status, and in preparation for the coming martial law, authoring the
thoughts of the gullible with the concepts and catchwords of the police state. "Baby killers"
and "pigs" alchemically have become heroes-in-uniform first-responders putting their boots on
the ground in harm's way, whose muh brothers/muh mission training sanctions incinerating
civilians IDF style, who won't hesitate enforcing shelter-in-place orders back home at gun
point even on their own kind.
@Den Lille
Abe "The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,'
which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of
discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and
empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued.
'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality judiciously, as you will we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's
actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
- Ronald Suskind (American journalist) reporting the comments of a White House aide (later
identified as Karl Rove) ["Without A Doubt" by Ron Suskind, The New York Times Magazine, 17
October 2004].
" Why?" Well for one thing they carry out policies concocted by delusional "intellectuals"
and fellow travellers of whom you are most assuredly king, Saker.
@Charles
Martel Charles Martel expresses views that I suppose are very common among Americans. My
favourite SF writer Robert Heinlein would certainly have agreed with every word. Yet I
believe that Charles shows signs of having been deceived – having "drunk the Kool-Aid",
as I think some people used to say.
As soon as I saw the trope about Khrushschev "threatening to bury us" I knew there was
some intentional or unintentional misunderstanding. Lo and behold!
'While addressing Westerners at the embassy on November 18, 1956, in the presence of
Polish Communist statesman Władysław Gomułka, Khrushchev said: "About the
capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don't like us,
don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or
not, history is on our side. We will bury you!" The speech prompted the envoys from twelve
NATO nations and Israel to leave the room'.
What Khrushchev obviously meant was "We shall be the survivors after you have perished,
and so we will stand at your graveside". Unfortunately, he worded the thought more briefly
and vividly. In the Western world, which is ruled by propaganda and psyops, such techniques
are used to put the worst possible construction on the words of any antagonist.
Very similar to the furore about Iranian president Ahmadinejad supposedly threatening to
"wipe Israel off the map". As the extensive and accurate articles cited below explain, what
Ahmadinejad really said (in Farsi) was that "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem]
must be eliminated from the pages of history". Just as the USSR, for instance, has been
eliminated from the pages of history (and atlases).
" Let me repeat that truism once again, in an even more direct way: veterans are killers
hired for money. Period. The rest is all propaganda."
Yes, from the point of view of recruiters.
Not, as far as I can see, from the point of view of the hired.
Do not think that many join military forces with the intention to kill.
Happen to know a now retired USA pilot, who joined the USA forces for two reasons, he hated
the work on his father's farm, and he wanted to fly.
He did kill, I suppose, flying a helicopter in the Vietnam war is not for philantropic
business.
He also flew bombers, bomber pilots seldom see what the bombs they drop do.
But I wonder if he ever saw that he killed someone, as far as I know him he did not like to
kill at all.
Back to the question, should we thank veterans ?
I wonder for what.
They took a job, a job they knew could well lead to killing, or be killed.
A quite different situation exists for those who join an army out of idealistic motives, such
as George Orwell in the thirties in Spain.
But, thanking them depends on what side in the war you support.
@Simon in
London "If Russia ran the world things would be different, but I doubt they would be
better".
You are very probably right, which is why Russia has no desire to run the world. All it
wants – at least according to Mr Putin – is to be treated with respect and given
its rights under international law. Not to live in a world ruled by any single nation, but in
a world where all nations treat one another with respect and consideration.
@Simon in
London "If Russia ran the world things would be different, but I doubt they would be
better."
Self-serving, subjective Anglo-Zionist crap logic. For YOU, maybe, as a "patriotic"
denizen of the globo-imperialist Anglosphere, it "wouldn't be better". For RUSSIANS, it would
for sure "be better". For most of the world outside the Anglosphere except the Zionists and
the Wahhabis, too, it would "be better". I daresay that even for most ***ordinary*** people
in the Anglosphere, it would probably "be better" (depending of course on exactly how you
define "better") – or at least, not be WORSE.
It's also quite amusing how you automatically equate the ending of the current criminal
U.S. regime's planetwide aggressions and uncontested global hegemony aspirations, with
"Russia running the world", the same way that the U.S. regime wants to do right now. As if
that is the ONLY possible outcome – and as if it is preordained and inevitable that one
single hegemonic nation should lord it over and call the shots in the entire world by force.
The result, no doubt, of your brainwashing since birth with capitalist imperialist ideology,
wedded to "British Empire" chauvinism that now finds a vicarious outlet in sucking up to U.S.
global hegemonism as part of the Anglosphere.
Read The Protocols of Zion and see who is behind the wars that America has been forced into
ie it is the Zionist banking kabal and this was true from WWI right on down to the wars in
the Mideast and all for the Zionist banking kabal and their Zionist satanic NWO!
@Rex
Little There have been several armed invasions of the US with two more on the way. They
were entirely undeterred by the useless parasitic employees of the "Department of Defense".
I want to thank the men of the armed services for for their service. Whether that service
was for money, job, because you wanted to vent a warped sense of what it means (merely
killing others fellows is hardly a noble task) or
whether you sincerely desire to serve the country as a duty.
For any of those reasons above
Thanks . . . (my only regret is not keeping you from unnecessary conflicts) But I honor
your service.
This is how the Pentagon thanks everyone for their service!
Jun 30, 2014 America's Veteran Crisis: Abandoned At Home
As politicians in Washington wring their hands over the Veterans Affairs scandal, VICE
News travels to Portland, Oregon, to see what it's all really about.
December 9, 2016 Report: VA staff left veteran's body in shower nine hours, tried to hide
mistakes
SEMINOLE -- Staff members at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System left the body of a veteran
in a shower room for more than nine hours then tried to cover up the mistake, a hospital
investigation shows.
@Charles
Martel You have it backwards. The enlisted and conscripted were dummy candy asses,
lacking the balls and brains to avoid abetting the venal national security state and its vile
owners. Now in this sad year of 2018, the US military is little more than the Goy Auxiliary
of the jooie IDF making enlistment doubly stupid and cowardly, especially if you are a white
person. Notice your hero Trumpstein didn't enlist and neither did any of the "neocons" or
anyone else with any brains or balls
@David In
TN No, but irrelevant. What's your point?
All humans who sacrifice their own free will and freedom of conscience, no matter what
"side" they are on to follow orders like a killing machine, are almost by definition,
subhuman. They are dangerous amoral killers. They are the "kinetic action" that takes
aggressive war from a concept to a reality. Humanity would be better off if they could never
reproduce and if they were strictly limited to fighting each other to the death
We need a law forbidding foreigners from speaking on our political affairs. It is not,
and never will be, their call. The author is clearly a Russian nationalist, which is a
great thing, but that belongs in Russia.
I'll keep reading the foreign press, including from Russia, until there is a good reason
not to, like a shooting war.
Even propaganda sometimes includes constructive criticism. The Soviets were right when
they criticized lynchings in the South, and the international shame helped bring an end to
them.
If you believe some of the American Pravda articles here, you should welcome any
help that we can get from abroad to clean up our government.
@Tom
Welsh You probably overlooked the rest of my comment: "like most politicians in high
office everywhere and at all times, he was also a psychopath and did not shirk from killing
fellow human beings." That includes the war criminals Bush I, Bush II, and the White House
Negro.
A well-argued essay that addresses a relevant and important issue. Mercenaries, like regular
working folk, are just doing their job that they got paid for as per the contract. They
fulfilled the contract, no need to thank them. I never got a special thanks for doing my job,
certainly not from the highest authorities and every Tom, Dick and Harry in between.
@EliteCommInc.
@EliteComminc: the US was "invited" into South Vietnam by the puppet regime it installed
there in the 1st place. Therefore its attack on North Vietnam was still illegal and amounted
to a war crime. Period.
The Empire will NOT survive for one day without a war! The MIC runs this Empire and it won't
allow the Empire to go on as usual without purchasing or the empire's puppet government
exporting their products to the other countries. The aggressions are meant to kill innocent
people and to destroy the weapons that were sold to the countries to begin with! So the other
countries have to purchase more to defend themselves (catch 22). In other words all acts of
aggression are about nothing but money in this capitalist system!
One of the very best articles I have ever read. and which in my opinion should be required
reading for every high school graduate in the United States, and other countries.
@Hans
Vogel I do agree with your generalisation about politicians in high office. It was just
that I reacted quite strongly to your implication that the mere appointment of that man
proved Saddam to be "perverted".
There's an interesting discussion to be had about how fair it is to call people
"perverted" who merely behave like the proportion of humans who love violence and often
resort to it.
I certainly wouldn't have liked to be in Saddam Hussein's power if he had any reason to
harm me. On the other hand, I often wonder how easy it can be to rule a country like Iraq or
Syria, and wonder if perhaps a hard dictator might be the best fit under present
circumstances.
Generally speaking, political reform follows cultural and economic change – not vice
versa. I'd love to see any of the leading American or British politicians, or other
blowhards, try to do Saddam's or Assad's job without getting killed within a week or two.
After a year we could ask them searching questions about the morality of what they have done,
and I bet they would come up with something along the lines of "It was either me or
them".
"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to
believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and
expect to have one's laws and constitution embraced. It is in the nature of things that the
progress of Reason is slow and no one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature
and prudence is to repulse them as enemies.
One can encourage freedom, never create it by an invading force".
- Maximilien Robespierre (1791)
"Laws should be so appropriate to the people for whom they are made that it is very
unlikely that the laws of one nation can suit another".
- Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, "L'Esprit des
Lois"
I guess it stands to reason that people who are stupid enough to join the military, are the
same ones stupid enough to keep waving the American flag after getting their asses shot off.
But other than for that reason, I've never understood why anyone would do such as thing.
The Saker seems like a foreign psychological warfare agent.
Now ... you could be onto something here.
I wouldn't put it in exactly those words, feels so "Cold war" and things have changed since,
but, yes, the overall intention IS something along that path.
Agree with the main points, of course. Especially with
..if we didn't have a strong deterrent force (and the demonstrated will to use it) there
are plenty of Mohammedans, Chinese and others who would dearly love to subdue us.
and
.And to me, service in the military is a civic duty as well for able-bodied males.
Does "The Saker" really imagine that he is the first person who has thought to quote the
principles of the Nuremberg Trials ? Does he expect applause for stating the obvious?
What the Saker is indeed quite obvious, but it is is not openly stated all that often.
Even people who generally object to the US-led wars feel it necessary to exempt the veterans
from the blame as an innocent or even wronged party. I've personally witnessed the madness at
the begging of the Iraq war when people practically genuflected before the members of the
military, and the banners and pins "We support our troops" were everywhere. Support in what,
in the commission of a crime? But no one came out and said that.
failures or refusals on the part of the American people to enforce what provisions of
their own Constitution have led to this pass?
I am sure he did but the article isn't about that. You care to provide the answer?
The most obvious one is that the American people are under intense propaganda coupled with
the essential informational blockade. All alternative information is carefully excluded from
the public view. Again, the Iraq war is a good examples: before the invasion, all attempts to
say what things might not go as smoothly as projected were promptly cut off. Add to this a
remarkably low level of education of most Americans, who aren't familiar with geography or
history, and you get the state of affairs you have.
You are either fighting over there or you are fighting in your homeland. When you stop
fighting over there, you end up fighting in your homeland.
America has just done the same thing every other successful Empire has done since the
dawn of time, suggesting a natural line of development in human civilizations.
Pretty much.
All of America's enemies simply want America out of the way so they can do the same
thing America has done.
Exactly.
If I were Russian or Chinese, I would want the same thing Saker calls for.
And that explains his articles in general.
But let's face it, a second-rate gorilla wanting the Alpha gorilla to die is a different
sentiment from the internationalist liberal humanitarian bullshit Saker cites in his
article.
@Ernesto
Che that just tells me how much you don't know about South Vietnam. The problem was not
that the South Vietnamese were puppets. But just the opposite. Trying to get the South
Vietnamese to follow US prescriptions was like trying to catch a porcupine.
Single most obvious rebuttal to your nonsense -- the rem oval of the first president by
his own leadership – sure we signed on -- no sign on to get rid of an obedient
compliant partner. No one removes their puppets.
I suggest you peruse the lengthy discussions on this subject in the archives on the site
or you could stop mouthing talking points and actually examine the issues on your own.
But to the point -- Well, dropping the civil war nonsense is progress.
@Tom
Welsh Civil reply in obvious deep disagreement in this pub. Nice.
So, my reply is simple: disagree.
Not because of multipolar world, no. That could be a good idea if the other two contenders
were setups I'd like to live in. I wouldn't. So, as I stated before and always will, if I
have to choose multipolar between those three and unipolar managed by US Administration, I
choose the later. Free will, personal choice and such. Vodka, Jack Daniels, whatever.
And, in my particular case it would mean living under, ahm, that " Xi's concept ". Haha
.yeah.
You are correct in one thing, though. There are some questions with no answers,or better,
answers we like. In this particular case there is such answer. Two options:
Global US (or, as Saker puts it "Anglo-Zionist") domination.
Multipolar world with regional wars on its borders, if we are lucky. If unlucky MAD.
The first one could be improve upon. The second can too, without the later.
Big topic; too big for this pub.
Now, should Russia and/or China introduce some other economic and societal models things
could change for better, maybe. That option, hope, remains. Especially in Russia. Of course,
not while the current regime is in power.
But, then, something can change for better in USA too.
We'll see. In meantime, having USA being a dominant world power is, for some of us, preferable
solution to that multipolar" thing.
Or to put it bluntly:we .do ..NOT TRUST .Kremlin and Beijing.
Simple as that.
Russia has no desire to run the world. All it wants – at least according to Mr
Putin – is to be treated with respect and given its rights under international law.
Not to live in a world ruled by any single nation, but in a world where all nations treat
one another with respect and consideration.
Ups... had I seen this , especially " .all nations treat one another with respect and
consideration ." I wouldn't have bothered with my comment No. 239. Please disregard it.
Moving on.
@Tom
Welsh Interesting point you are raising: "Generally speaking, political reform follows
cultural and economic change – not vice versa." I am afraid in most cases, there is
just a woeful lack of documentary evidence. Regarding a recent case for which we have a
wealth of data, the EU, we see the opposite. Cultural and economic change (immigration,
stifling regulations, advance of big monopolies such as Microsoft, Bayer, social misery such
as in Greece etc) has followed in the wake of political reform, initiated by the Maastricht
Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty.
It would seem in the Soviet Union cultural and economic also followed political reform.
One could sustain the same regarding Peronist Argentina until the early 1950s, the German
Empire in 1871 which created the framework for profound and vast cultural and economic
change, Italy since 1861, and so on. Thus, I am not so sure about the validity of the historical "law" you have tentatively
formulated.
In meantime, having USA being a dominant world power is, for some of us, preferable
solution to that multipolar" thing.
Or to put it bluntly: we .do ..NOT TRUST .Kremlin and Beijing.
Simple as that.
I don't trust Beijing. I trust D.C. about as much as I trust the Kremlin, or maybe a
little less, given the way the United States has comported itself internationally since the
end of the Cold War.
@James
Speaks I had considered that my comment about you having low low brain wattage was a bit
too harsh even though you are certainly a fool but it seems I was correct on both counts
after all. A fool is one who is repeatedly fooled and your comment proves that this is the
case in the matter of yourself and 9/11.
The little bit of knowledge that you've acquired is quite useless without a measure of
commonsense which you clearly lack. Again, this thread is about the poor fools who were duped
into participating in US wars of aggression not 9/11 so do yourself a favour and read the
articles on 9/11 that can be found right here at The Unz Review including the one Ron Unz
wrote himself. Good luck.
@Mario964
Excellent point. It would be interesting to read a similar discussion of Saker's points, but
starting from the psychology behind the Milgram experiment and mass propaganda.
Every state must have its peoples, in one way or another, support its geopolitical
operations. In democracies, this comes down to applying psychological pressures so that the
citizenry votes for the desired programs. (Note that whether soldiers enlist primarily out of
idealism or as mercenaries is incidental.) Sufficient political and psychological support can
usually be generated (The surprising failure to inflame the Goutha gas attack into a major
war on Syria is one notable exception). Support can be achieved even in the face of strong
initial opposition, such as WWI and the Iraq war. As Saker mentions, the support can be
eroded when a war drags on too long without victory, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
It follows that an article such as Saker's will necessarily generate a strong opposition
reaction. After all, "support the troops" is itself one of these conditioning slogans that
drew the populace in in the first place. Simply recognizing propaganda creates cognitive
dissonance against what has been programmatically imbued, and people have to get past this
point to even consider that they might be acting from Milgram-like motives. Motivating people
to enter this state of psychological confusion so they can deprogram themselves is the
political trick.
This is probably easier for intellectuals, which include many on this site. Not because
they're smarter, but because temperamentally, they actually derive pleasure from the
headaches that accompany delving too deeply into confusing matters ;-).
1. Whether out of idealism or venality, there are a variety of sites, such as Saker's, Russia Insider, and notorious RT, which present viewpoints in general support of Russia.
2. The majority of the rest of the web (and news) presents viewpoints generally
denigrating Russia in nearly every way, from its economy, to government, to domestic and
foreign policy, to its military, and to its leadership (Putin!).
Regardless of motivation, each of these groups is busy telling us what's right with their
viewpoint, and how despicable is the other. The process reveals important information and
angles that the other side wouldn't publicize. Really, all you have to do is read critically
to identify and see past the authors prejudices. This is the point of free speech,
after all.
Pretty much all political arguments are meant to persuade readers, and I don't hold anyone
to blame for trying to be convincing. I do for outright lying, however, and I see a lot more
of that coming from #2 than #1. To the extent that #1 is "influencing elections", their main
effect IMHO is to bust propaganda bubbles of the MSM. And this effect is minor given the vast
resources allocated by #2 to their efforts.
Aren't sanctions (i.e., economic pressure) acts of aggression, too? Just as much as dropping
of bombs, boots on ground, etc.?
Anyway, I really like this article and was hoping it would come along sooner or later in
the wake of the 100th anniversary of the end of the "great" war. I am the only person I know
who doesn't suck up to the paid killers.
Regardless of motivation, each of these groups is busy telling us what's right with
their viewpoint, and how despicable is the other. The process reveals important information
and angles that the other side wouldn't publicize. Really, all you have to do is read
critically to identify and see past the authors prejudices. This is the point of free
speech, after all.
Or to put it bluntly:we .do ..NOT TRUST .Kremlin and Beijing.
Of course; we shouldn't. But then, we shouldn't trust Britain or Israel either. It's
really stupid to assume that a conflict of interest won't arise.
The point of diplomacy is to attempt to come to workable accommodations that have some
chance of implementing peaceful coexistence at a minimum, and preferably to discover common
interests that can be developed to mutual advantage. We'll have to accept or compromise on
irresolvable differences, and work so these don't become too abrasive.
This would be a nice change from the foreign policy of destruction in which the west has
been engaged. Country after country wishing to stay outside that orbit have been turned into
hell-holes, while the austerity economic policies of the west have destroyed their own
nations even from within.
I've been trying to understand why it's nice to read about development in China and
Russia. I've come to realize that it's uplifting to read about anyone engaging in
constructive activity, and it saddens me to see so little of that in the west along similar
lines. Not that Russia and China are neglecting their military, but nearly all large
scale western projects seem to be militaristic and destructive, to the exclusion of anything
else. Has the west lost its ability to do something inspiring?
The US is a country, that has been at war for most of its life. I believe only a mere 25
years of not waging or participating in a war. Hence its reverence for the military.
Yep, the ZUS is as addicted to war as a junkie to drugs over 90% of its history at war,
truly a rogue, insane country.
And in wars a lot of money can be made, lets not forget that
That's why one of the key elements of the ZUS deep state is the corrupt military
industrial complex.
May I ever so slightly differ from one of your points?
You stated; "The result of this will, however, be catastrophic for the top 100 U.S.
'defense' contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, because then
all of those firms' foreign sales except to the Sauds, Israel and a few other feudal and
fascist regimes, will greatly decline."
I would suggest that these top US defense contractors sales will decline for the simple
reason that they would then have to compete with the rest of the world. One of these US
defense strategies had been to sell their products, or rather say force their products on
NATO no matter how inferior they were. If my memory serves me correctly the UK had a good
fighter jet in the Lightning, but the US forced NATO to buy the vastly inferior American
product which had many crashes and killed quite a few pilots.
But in the situation of a multi-polar world the US would have to really compete with the
likes of Russia and China, which as we know are already producing superior products and the
US has never really been able to compete in such an atmosphere.
There is one other statement which I would also like to differ upon: " a mono-polar world
is a world in which one nation stands above international law" and this statement is
flawed.
A mono-polar world' has never given the right for one nation to be above international
law. America did though start calling itself the International 'policeman', modelling itself
on something similar to a New York policeman stealing apples from a greengrocer's stand. Once
the US realised that there were no voices to be heard, they automatically progressed from the
uniform policeman to the likes of 'Al Capone', which I've noted many bent policemen do.
The trick for such policemen is to know when to retire and get out of the game, but the US
has never been able to retire, and now its fruits are coming back to haunt them.
The proposal I would like to see introduced at the United
Nations would be one to remove a nation that systematically violates the UN Charter. If not
totally remove them, then at least bar them from being on the Security Council, and of course
thus removing their veto.
The UN Charter is the treaty that any nation must adopt to join the United Nations. The very
purpose of the UN when it was formed after WW2 was to prevent war. Thus, the UN charter has
clauses that say a nation can only attack another nation under the authority of the UN Security
Council. It has a clause that says that it violates the UN Charter to even mass forces on
another nation's borders and to then threaten to attack in order to coerce another nation.
The USA has of course frequently been in violation of the UN Charter. Certainly what it has
been doing in Syria is in violation of the UN Charter. The US has been in violation of the UN
Charter for some time. At least back as far as when Clinton couldn't get the UN Security
Council to support his attack on Serbia and he went ahead and did it anyways. There is of
course a long list of such violations. Israel is of course also in violation of the UN Charter
with its constant attacks on its neighbors.
From there, the course would follow basically what Mr. Zuesse says. America's poodle, the UK
would certainly veto a resolution seeking to discipline the USA for breaking the very core
notion of the UN, which is to prevent another worldwide catastrophe like what the world
experienced during WW2. It was a world that was horrified by what had occurred during WW2 that
formed the UN to prevent that from happening again.
To me, its hard to see how the UN accepts the leadership of a nation that violates the Charter that every nation had to
agree to in order to join the organization. Of course, mob bosses have their own ways of breaking the rules of civilized
society. Still, it seems like a place to try to rally the world about.
Dear "Anonymous": Your comment is extremely well-informed and relevant, but the U.N. has been
highly dependent upon the U.S. financially, and therefore the initiative cannot come from the
U.N. itself, but only from particular nations. What I was summarily describing in concern to
the U.N. as it actually exists (not to the U.N. as it should exist, which maybe we'll get to
some day) is an ongoing PR stunt, to be staged at the U.N., to draw the public's attention to
the fact that the U.S. Government has been functioning blatantly, for many years, as a
fascist power. This truth needs to be rubbed constantly into the face of today's America's
Government so as to isolate that Government internationally to become the pariah-Government
that the people who founded the U.N. would puke to see. What won WW II was physically the
Allies, but what has since taken over in spirit is Hitler's spirit, but with different
priorities of whom the 'enemies' are, not Jews especially but this time Russians especially.
Instead of the 'vast Jewish conspiracy', we've got the 'cunning Russian conspiracy' now
having supposedly chosen the evil Trump and made him become America's President, etc, and
it's based on lies now just as it was based on lies in Hitler's time. But it's now the
American aristocracy, instead of the German aristocracy. I was proposing there a PR campaign,
to expose them as what they are.
The wealthy owners of America were always in favor of Hitler's idea of world domination, butt
hey wanted to be in charge of it instead of the Germans. After WWII they saw their chance to
take the lead and have been working to enslave the world ever since. Of course they hate the
UN, or anyone who does not bow to their will to power.
Thank you for this important article. I do not see the development of PESCO or any homegrown
European military as something positive. I think this is simply a re-branding exercise on
behalf of those who control NATO. These " new" proxy militaries will continue to buy US
military equipment as NATO did before. My fear is that the re-branding effort may result in a
revised military doctrine which may actually be more aggressive than NATO..
Laugh if you will, but I think the Eurocrats want to attempt to (re)take the North American
continent (probably with DC's blessing.) Did you see Putin and Trudeau huddle together at the
WWI commemoration meeting?
(And another thing ) We (the people of the West) should remember that the European, English
and American aristocracies (as Zuesse refers to them) keep a boot to each others throats, and
if one lets up, the other grabs a knife from the back pocket and goes for the jugular.
Because they are like that.
In other words: a mono-polar world is a world in which one nation stands above international
law, and that nation's participation in an invasion immunizes also each of its allies who
join in the invasion, protecting it too from prosecution, so that a mono-polar world is one
in which the United Nations can't even possibly impose international law impartially, but can
impose it only against nations that aren't allied with the mono-polar power, which in this
case is the United States.
Might I suggest a viewing and listening to a Dr. Navarro speech:
America is not only the true "evil empire," but it is also a very sick and deluded evil
empire.
The Trump Regime is unhinged, as it desperately tries to Make the American Empire Great
Again by attacking its opponents such as Russia, China, or Iran; waging financial and
economic wars on the world; and projecting its own imperial insanity onto others one twitter
tweet at a time.
But this is true of America in general, regardless of whatever malign regime is in
Washington DC.
The more that America lashes out and seeks to maintain its pretensions as the
Exceptionalist nation, the more it only accelerates its own decline and destruction, as well
as its Day of Financial Reckoning with the collapse of the Ponzi Scheme US economy and Wall
Street.
Indeed, it's not a secret that another Wall Street implosion is coming, one that will make
the 2008 version triggered by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy seem like a tea party in
comparison.
Given Donald Trump's own record of multiple business bankruptcies, perhaps it's only
appropriate that he is the current ruler of America. LOL.
The real issue is when America itself will shatter into a several separate nation states.
Indeed, the prospect of a Second American Civil War is increasingly on the minds of US
foreign policy experts and even the American masses themselves.
According to Dmitry Orlov, America is fast closing the "collapse gap" with its former Cold
War nemesis, the USSR.
Food scarcity and malnutrition of children under the age of 5, places the Ukraine in
percentage terms lower than Pakistan, Ethiopia, Libya, Iraq .the Ukraine welcomes the Cookie
Monster (stats National Geographic)
Obama forever denigrated Nobel Peace Price, making it a cruel joke.
Notable quotes:
"... That Obomber was a real duplicitous piece of shi er, work. They give that con artist the Nobel Peace Prize as a reward for his glib platitudes and deceits promising a more peaceful, egalitarian and prosperous world, and without a hesitation or apology he turns around and initiates four or five new wars in addition to the two he had inherited from Dubya. ..."
"... He re-ignites the Cold War, threatens Russia militarily at several staging areas along its Western frontier, and doubles or triples down in expenditures on the American nuclear arsenal. No price is too high for the American taxpayer when it comes to guaranteed American hegemony over the planet. Nuclear brinksmanship is preferable to any modicum of peaceful co-existence. ..."
That Obomber was a real duplicitous piece of shi er, work. They give that con artist the
Nobel Peace Prize as a reward for his glib platitudes and deceits promising a more peaceful,
egalitarian and prosperous world, and without a hesitation or apology he turns around and
initiates four or five new wars in addition to the two he had inherited from Dubya.
He re-ignites the Cold War, threatens Russia militarily at several staging areas along its
Western frontier, and doubles or triples down in expenditures on the American nuclear
arsenal. No price is too high for the American taxpayer when it comes to guaranteed American
hegemony over the planet. Nuclear brinksmanship is preferable to any modicum of peaceful co-existence.
The other sides (defined as enemies solely by Washington, not themselves) are treated with
disdain and disrespect, as Barry flaunts his trash talking skills, obviously learned in his
self-admitted days of street hustling and tripping on the drug du jour.
Trump has also been a master of insults, but it was Obama who unilaterally unveiled the
skill as a favored American diplomatic tactic.
I'm sure it has Putin, Xi, Kim and Rouhani shivering and willing to swallow any insult to
avoid unbridled Neocon wrath [sarc.]. Fools like the guys the American aristocracy routinely
put in the White House are gonna get us all killed one of these days.
by Justin
Raimondo Posted on November 15,
2018 November 14, 2018 We don't really hear all that much about Melania Trump in the
media except occasional digs at her immigration status and a few daring photos. That's
because the FLOTUS is one of the few unreservedly good things about this administration, and
of course the media doesn't want to go there. Her grace, her reserve, her remarkable calm at
the epicenter of a tumultuous White House, and, strikingly, her sense of style (and I don't
just mean her clothes) puts her on a different plane from the Washington circus that
surrounds her.
She had managed to keep her distance from the cutthroat politics of the Beltway, that is,
until her
collision with Mira Ricardel, National Security Advisor John Bolton's top aide and
enforcer. Ricardel apparently disparaged the First Lady to other members of the White House
staff, and tried to withhold resources from her on her recent trip to Africa. Whatever
personal interactions of an unpleasant nature may have passed between these women, it's hard
to imagine what provoked the office of the FLOTUS to issue the following statement :
"It is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she no longer deserves the
honor of serving in this White House."
Ricardel is described by those who know her as abrasive, a bureaucratic in-fighter, and
one "who doesn't suffer fools lightly." Having mistaken the First Lady for a fool, Ms.
Ricardel is the one who will suffer – along with Bolton, who has protected her since
her appointment from a chorus of critics, but who cannot stand against Melania.
So Team Bolton is on the outs, which means the America Firsters within the administration
who oppose our foreign policy of globalism and perpetual war are on the rise. Which leads us
to contemplate the meaning of this incident. The War Party's ranks are not filled with Mr.
Nice Guys. They are nearly all of them pushy self-serving aggressive SOBs, with about as much
personal charm as a rattlesnake.
I'm reminded of an essay by the
conservative philosopher Claes Ryn, professor of politics at Catholic University, in which he
describes the obnoxious behavior of the children of our political class in a local
MacDonald's just inside one of the Beltway's more prestigious neighborhoods:
"Deference to grown-ups seems unknown. I used to take offense, but the children have
only taken their cue from their parents, who took their cue from their parents. The adults,
for their part, talk in loud, penetrating voices, some on cell phones, as if no other
conversations mattered. The scene exudes self-absorption and lack of self-discipline.
"Yes, this picture has everything to do with U.S. foreign policy. This is the emerging
American ruling class, which is made up increasingly of persons used to having the world
cater to them. If others challenge their will, they throw a temper tantrum. Call this the
imperialistic personality – if 'spoilt brat' sounds too crude."
The Imperialistic Personality, indeed! It seems Ms. Ricardel had one too many temper
tantrums so that even in the permissive atmosphere of Washington, D.C., it was too much.
There are a lot of imperialistic personalities in that particular location, it seems, for one
reason or another. But things are different in Donald Trump's Washington, and even if we have
to take down the Ricardels one by one, just think of the numbers we can rack up in the next
six years.
A NOTE TO MY READERS : My apologies for the short column: I have some medical
issues to take care off this week and I'm a bit pressed for time.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
by John Quiggin on November 11, 2018 It's 100 years since
the Armistice that brought an end to fighting on the Western Front of the Great War. Ten
million soldiers or more were dead, and even more gravely wounded, along with millions of
civilians. Most of the empires that had begun the war were destroyed, and even the victors had
suffered crippling losses. Far from being a "war to end war", the Great War was the starting
point for many more, as well as bloody and destructive revolutions. These wars continue even
today, in the Middle East, carved up in secret treaties between the victors.
For much of the century since then, it seemed that we had learned at least something from
this tragedy, and the disasters that followed it. Commemoration of the war focused on the loss
and sacrifice of those who served, and were accompanied by a desire that the peace they sought
might finally be achieved.
But now that everyone who served in that war has passed away, along with most of those who
remember its consequences, the tone has shifted to one of glorification and jingoism.
In part, this reflects the fact that, for rich countries, war no longer has any real impact
on most people. As in the 19th century, we have small professional armies fighting in faraway
countries and suffering relatively few casualties. Tens of thousands of people may die in these
conflicts, but the victims of war impinge on our consciousness only when they seek shelter as
refugees, to be turned away or locked up.
In the past, I've concluded message like this with the tag "Lest we Forget". Sadly, it seems
as if everything important has already been forgotten.
novakant 11.11.18 at 11:11 am (no link)
There's an interesting review in this week's TLS (paywall) by Richard J. Evans of
Jörn Leonhard: Pandora's Box – A History of the First World War
I think it varies per place, even within countries. In my English village this morning, about
a quarter of the population gathered in front of the war memorial, closing the only road.
They stood there, quietly. A couple of older people spent twenty minutes reading out the
names of all the poor souls who had left the village for war and never returned. Then there
was two minutes silence, the vicar called for personal peace for all those affected by war,
and then demanded that all those who could work for peace do so. A grim soberness marked the
whole thing
I had nearly not gone, expecting it to be too jingoistic, but it was nothing of the sort. I
am sure across the many communities remembering the Armistice across the world, many will be
doing the same.
This is my way of responding to Armistice Day.
Bob Dylan, Masters of War" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCnYmrADSns
"You that fasten all the trigger
For the others to fire
And you sit back and watch
While the death toll gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud"
Phil Ochs, "I Declare the War Is Over https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOs9xYUjY4I
"One-legged veterans will greet the dawn
And they're whistling marches as they mow the lawn
And the gargoyles only sit and grieve
The gypsy fortune teller told me that we'd been deceived
You only are what you believe"
Big Ed McCurdy, "Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5hxqNdqKo
"Last night I had the strangest dream
I ever dreamed before
I dreamed the world had all agreed
To put an end to war"
Just a personal question on jq. I left Australia 30 years ago. I can remember no jingoism on
armistice Day. On Australia Day and Anzac Day perhaps, but never on remembrance Day. Had that
really changed?
Regarding Leonhard, it is always a cause for concern when a reviewer calls a historian
"judicious."
The most important thing to remember about the Great War is that it wasn't caused by
malign ideologies, or nefarious leveling schemes, or crazed utopian economic cranks. It was
simply an inevitable breakdown of the normal operation of the capitalist world system.
Remember that when the ever growing infestation of libertarians, respected by their peers,
trot out their mythology.
Speaking of "lest we forget," how many people and how many commemorations have managed to
forget that the armistice came about as a direct consequence of the socialist uprising in
Germany, sparked in large part by a mass mutiny among German sailors in Kiel? Two days before
the formal armistice declaration, workers led by the left wing of the SPD stormed the
Reichstag, an ad hoc governing coalition led by the right wing of the SPD negotiated the
abdication of the Kaiser, and both the left and right wings of the SPD simultaneously issued
separate proclamations of a socialist German republic (by which they meant two very different
things, of course, a divergence that was notoriously written out over the following few years
in the blood of revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg).
In short, you can toss Armistice Day into the category as things like weekend, the 8 hour
work day, the 40 hour work week, social safety nets, and so on: if you celebrate it, don't
forget to thank revolutionary socialism for making it possible.
I'm with John on this one. I'll wear the poppy in recognition of the sacrifice, but will
avoid the local cenotaph ceremony. I find the current temper of Remembrance Day services
distasteful and the "our freedoms" trope abhorrent.
Reason @5 It's mostly Anzac Day, but the 100th anniversary has made Remembrance Day a bigger
deal than usual. And we just had a breathless announcement that "veterans" (I still haven't
got used to this Americanism) would be given boarding priority on Virgin airlines.
To be fair, our PM, who is generally hopeless on this and other issues, gave quite a good
speech on the day, which ran under the headline "War is always a failure of our humanity"
the loss of life and the lasting injuries that follow the fighting remain to show the
futility of allowing war to arise as an answer to our conflicting ideas. humanity has failed
as the dominant species. the fault lies in the hopes of too many to emulate the past society
of material greed as a goal. reaching our limits of destroying the clean air and poisoning
the seas with chemical and plastic waste as though the planet could absorb an endless spew
will cause humanity's end. honoring the dead is the least we may do to salute those that went
before us.
steven t johnson@6: WWI was "simply an inevitable breakdown of the normal operation of the
capitalist world system".
Remind me how many other "inevitable breakdowns of the normal operation" happened before,
or after 1914.
Remind me how far the authorities in Serbia, Russia (or indeed Austria-Hungary or Germany)
believed themselves to be operating in the interests of, or governed by, the capitalist world
system.
Come to that, for the next catastrophe in 1939, do the same for the authorities in Russia,
Poland and Germany.
And explain why there have been no such inevitable breakdowns since.
John Quiggin@10 "To be fair, our PM, who is generally hopeless on this and other issues, gave
quite a good speech on the day, which ran under the headline 'War is always a failure of our
humanity'" It seems to me to be quite unfair to blame WWI on us and our depraved human
nature. As Norman Angell notoriously demonstrated "us" do not get any benefit from war. Cui
bono? Nationalists want to go back to a world where sovereign nations struggle for their
place in the sun. Some, like Trump and Putin, want to go it alone. Others like the lords of
the EU want a consortium. What all share is a system of capitalist competition which will,
like all complex, crisis-ridden systems, eventually break down. Whining about human nature
seems to me detestable.
stephen@12 agrees with majority here, and elsewhere, of course. Nonetheless the confidence
the Spanish-American war, the Boer war, the Russian-Turkish war, the Sino-Japanese war, the
Russian-Japanese war and either of the Balkan wars would of course not, ever, possibly, have
spread like the third Balkan war, er, WWI would be touching were it not so disingenuous. Even
if one insists only conflicts between the great powers, the possibility that the Crimean war,
the war with Magenta and Solferino, the Schleswig-Holstein war, the Franco-Prussian war
(proper,) could not possibly have spread out of control is equally disingenous. Remember
54-40 or fight, the Aroostook war? The monotonously repetitive crises like Fashoda and the
first and second Moroccan crises and the brouhaha over the annexation of Bosnia clearly shows
crisis is normal operation. stephen's insistence this is all irrelevant is convenience, not
argument.
As to the absurd notion that a capitalist world system, in which states are the protectors
of the property of the nation's ruling class, somehow means the chieftains are pursuing the
general interests of world capitalism is delirious twaddle. It is the reformist who pretends
globalism means trade and peace.
I am well aware that everyone agrees with stephen on this point, but it is still
wrong.
Tens of thousands of people may die in these conflicts
Try 2 million in Korea.
One million in Vietnam.
500,000 in Iraq.
And who knows how many in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Serbia, Somalia and all our
various proxy wars in Yemen, Latin America and Africa plus all of the civilians massacred by
our client-state dictators in Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Congo, Egypt, the
Dominican Republic, Haiti, Guatemala and others I'm likely forgetting.
America is the biggest purveyor of death, destruction and human misery on the globe, but
it sounds like we've "forgotten" that as well.
Plenty of horrible things have happened in various American and other war zones since the
Western Front. Plenty of busted-up vets in every city. The problem can't be that we
forgot .
but isn't the capitalist system an emergent effect based on properties of human nature:
individualism, acquisitiveness, aggression. Surely a change of human nature would lead to a
change of economics at least; hopefully in a progressive direction but not necessarily
so.
A while back, a native American on Twitter commented that her people had already
experienced an apocalypse. This led to the following reflection on my part:
The history of modern Western Europe can be viewed as a series of apocalypses. War after
war after war, only at peace after nearly destroying itself. And that is the history of the
modern world.
>In short, you can toss Armistice Day into the category as things like weekend, the 8
hour work day, the 40 hour work week, social safety nets, and so on: if you celebrate it,
don't forget to thank revolutionary socialism for making it possible.
Do and the 100 million people revolutionary socialists would murder in the 80 or so years
following armistice day, what do they owe the revolutionary socialists?
@13
>What all share is a system of capitalist competition which will, like all complex,
crisis-ridden systems, eventually break down. Whining about human nature seems to me
detestable.
Ah yes, we all remember how non-violent those non-capitalist systems were, with the gulags
and mass killing and terror famines.
In an Old Holborn 'baccy tin somewhere in the house is my grandad's WW1 medal. He served in
the London Labour Battalions. Gassed.
He worked twice between his return and his too early death. Both jobs being very
temporary. His family lived in poverty in the East End; the "Panel" was used at times:
charity from the worthies. My dad was crippled with diseases of poverty. He was a communist
(until the 50s).
He signed up with his mates in '39. His best mate Jimmy Biscoe killed in a bomber operation
in the early 40s.
I got my dad's medals this year, twenty years after his death. He only told me a bit of
his experiences when he was dying. He loved my mum, music and kindness.
My dear, gruff dad-in-law lost his left leg at Monte Cassino. Every few years he'd get a
new "fitting", which was a great strain for him. He loved his family, his garden, rowing; we
talked a little about his experiences one quiet afternoon at the RSA. He too died too
early.
My Mum's favourite brother was a boy sailor. He went through the River Plate among other
actions. He spent time in psychiatric hospital after the war for his 'war trauma'. He too
died early.
The padre at my daughter's funeral had been a padre at Arnhem. A quiet, deeply
compassionate man who took his own life some three years later.
My best friend at school, dead in his twenties, doing his "duty".
Not a hero among them: ordinary, flawed, loved and loving human beings.
And the people left behind ? Lives filled with quiet, unresolved sadness and loss; getting by
with grit and quiet courage.
I used to go to Dawn Service. Then it got to be political Theatre. I get f .g angry with
all the brouhaha, preening and cavorting. None of this helps or helped any of those people
mentioned above.
Half a billion for the AWM? And cutting the funding of food banks? Moral bloody Bankruptcy
writ large.
You know I could possibly be sympathetic with all of you if it wasn't the case that
utopian ideology didn't have more victims than all the nationalisms put together. A plague on
all your houses.
Birdie@17 is telling us human nature generated capitalism a hundred thousand years ago? Or is
telling us that human nature is only free in a capitalist system? I think neither.
Raven Onthill@18 seems to think it is incumbent on the lesser peoples to surrender without
a fight, and accept the status quo as God-given. That Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empires
could be liquidated peacefully, like a common bankruptcy. That is not how it works in a
capitalist system of sovereign states defending the property of their respective ruling
classes, against other states. The rise of Germany and the US against the relative decline of
the British empire meant the balance of forces must change. The new balance could only be
found by war.
The relative decline of the US means the current balance of forces must change. That's why
the US government has explicitly declared Russia and China to be revisionist powers. The US
state will no more go quietly than the British empire, which would not reach a peaceful
accommodation with Germany then any more than it can reach a real accommodation with "Europe"
today.
ironoutofcavalry@19 spells out the shared premises of liberal democrats and fascists, the
determination that famines and wars under capitalism are acts of God, while everything that
happens under socialism is always deliberate. Even if you somehow pretend the depopulation of
the Americas and the mass deaths of the Middle Passage somehow had nothing to do with
capitalism, there were plenty of holocausts in later days. See Mike Davis' Late Victorian
Holocausts. (Davis contention that famines relatively soon after the revolution are the same
as the great Bengal famine or the Irish famine is social-democratic piety, the sort of thing
that gives it a bad name.) Idiot theorists of "totalitarianism" are invited to comment upon
the Triple War in South America.
ironoutofcavalry, the Black Book of Communism is a contemptible far-right propaganda rag
whose death tally was denounced by several of its own co-authors due to the main author's
obsession with reaching the nice round 100 million mark by any means necessary, with "victims
of communism" including such figures as hypothetical deaths due to lack of population growth
during famine periods, Soviet civilian deaths resulting from the economic dislocations of the
Nazi invasion, and even Nazi soldiers killed on the battlefields of the Eastern Front. By
standards much more rigorous and defensible than those used in the Black Book of Communism,
the basic functioning of global capitalist material inequality kills tens of millions of
people per decade -- which is before you even begin trying to tally the casualties of
capitalist conflicts like the two world wars, let alone any of the other massively
destructive imperial interventions around the world before and since, which people like
stephen seem to have trained themselves not to regard as catastrophic in the same way as
WWI/WWII as long as the victims are mostly poor brown people in the Third World. Hell, even
at this very moment the US is providing direct political and military support for a campaign
of intentional starvation by its Saudi proxy state against millions of people in northern
Yemen, a "terror famine" at least as deliberate and premeditated as anything Stalin or Mao
ever dreamed of.
If you must insist on spreading uninformed reactionary bromides, at least take it to a
less serious discussion space where it belongs, and regardless, don't forget to thank a
socialist if you enjoy not being sent to die in a muddy trench.
Stephen, here's a reasonable
summary of how the dynamics of capitalist economic development led inexorably to WWI and
WWII, and are leading to a future global conflict that may be much less distant than we'd
like to imagine. Now before you click the link, note the following passage quoted in the
linked article, by a political commentator writing in 1887 about the prospect of:
a world war, moreover of an extent the violence hitherto unimagined. Eight to ten
million soldiers will be at each other's throats and in the process they will strip Europe
barer than a swarm of locusts. The depredations of the Thirty Years' War compressed into
three to four years and extended over the entire continent; famine, disease, the universal
lapse into barbarism, both of the armies and the people, in the wake of acute misery
irretrievable dislocation of our artificial system of' trade, industry and credit, ending
in universal bankruptcy collapse of the old states and their conventional political wisdom
to the point where crowns will roll into the gutters by the dozen, and no one will be
around to pick them up; the absolute impossibility of foreseeing how it will all end and
who will emerge as victor from the battle. That is the prospect for the moment when the
development of mutual one-upmanship in armaments reaches us, climax and finally brings
forth its inevitable fruits. This is the pass, my worthy princes and statesmen, to which
you in your wisdom have brought our ancient Europe.
Now based on what you can guess of my political orientation strictly from what I've
posted here, try to guess which 19th century European political figure might have written
that passage. No, your first guess is wrong, he died in 1883, but close, now guess again.
Yes, your second guess is correct .
I've seen "X is bad" statements receive the "Oh yeah? Well Stalin was worse !" non
sequitur in response for many values of X. But this thread is the first time I've seen it
happen for X = WWI.
WLGR@7: if you think that revolutionary socialism made possible "weekend, the 8 hour work
day, the 40 hour work week, social safety nets" how do you explain that all these things
happened in states that did not have to endure the catastrophic misfortunes of revolutionary
socialism?
steven t johnson@14
This is the first time that I have ever been told that everyone [on CT? in the wider
universe?] agrees with me, but if that is so I do not see it as a reason for supposing I am
wrong. Rational arguments dissenting from my opinions are of course always welcome.
stj's argument that, because conflicts pre-1914 did not result in world wars, therefore
WWI was inevitable, has only to be made explicit to collapse.
I am particularly interested by stj's argument that the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78,
between two absolutist non-capitalist monarchies, was in some way the result of international
capitalism. If he will reconsider that opinion, he might like to recalibrate his denunciation
of other wars as capitalist. I would recommend the works of an intelligent Marxist, Perry
Anderson, who explains why pre-Revolutionary Russia and Wilhelmine Germany had many
capitalists, they were not actually capitalist states.
As for his denunciation of capitalism in which "states are the protectors of the property
of the nation's ruling class": there is of course some truth there, but in which system is
that not true? In capitalism, unlike some other systems – revolutionary socialism, to
start with – whose property has been protected?
Birdie@17: "isn't the capitalist system an emergent effect based on properties of human
nature: individualism, acquisitiveness, aggression?" Human nature indeed; try explaining to
Ashurbanipal of Assyria, Alexander, Genghiz Khan why these properties did not apply to their
very n0n-capitalist selves.
Stephen, are you under the impression that western Europe and the US never had a
revolutionary socialist tradition? If so, I don't really know what to tell you other than to
read even the most passing history of Western mass politics and labor struggles, the upshot
of which is that yes of course it was Western ruling classes' fear of working-class
revolutionary agitation that led to the implementation of every single one of those things,
up to and including the German ruling class in early November 1918 deciding to hand over
power to the moderate reformist wing of the SPD, whose first major policy decision as soon as
they'd settled into their desks was to pursue an armistice with the Entente. I can understand
maybe a few token Birchers or Randroids poking their heads out here and there, but has the
anti-intellectual right-wing fever swamp of our current era really risen high enough that
such mild observations are somehow surprising or controversial even in a forum like this one?
'I used to go to Dawn Service. Then it got to be political Theatre. I get f .g angry with
all the brouhaha, preening and cavorting. None of this helps or helped any of those people
mentioned above."
After Trump's election, I chose to abstain for a while from the drenching but never quenching
fire hose of information of the web, and for a while worked through the stacks of books I had
long left unread.
One I avoided for quite a while, not remembering its provenance was "Human Smoke", by
Nicholson Baker. It could not have been a gift; no one in the family still living is familiar
with this author.
It's an assemblage of quotes from various authors from the beginning of the twentieth
century up until the operation of the crematoria which furnishes the title, and its general
tendency is pacifism, disarmament, the efforts made both before and after the Great War to
prevent such catastrophes, and the inhumanity of the conduct of the war. From the outset, the
policy of our side was to starve the other into submission through naval blockades, and to a
considerable extent it was successful.
In the second round, our side was the first to start bombing civilians, and we got better
at it the longer the war went on, though it's far from clear that this was a useful
strategy.
Baker's book is not, could hardly be, a convincing argument for pacifism, given the
drumbeat of fascist pronouncements, threats, denunciations, bragging and swaggering. The
first world war was so pointless that it's hard to understand how it happened, why it
couldn't have been avoided, why it couldn't have been stopped sooner. The second was
different.
It is worth remembering that the First World War was called, by those who opposed it after
the fact, the "War to End War". An organisation was set up to ensure that there would be no
more wars, and an international agreement renouncing war was signed.
The organisation was being set up while the war was actually going on, if you count the
Western blockade and invasion of Russia, and the Greek invasion of Turkey, as part of the
war.
Nevertheless, within less than twenty years you had the Italian invasion of Ethiopia
(arguably an after-effect of Italy's failure to get what it wanted out of the First World
War) and soon after that, the Japanese invasion of southern China (inarguably, ditto).
It is possible for people to argue that since there has not been a similar war since 1945,
"humanity" has "learned its lesson". In reality, however, the reason why there has been no
similar war has been that the principal protagonists have nuclear weapons and no means of
defense against them. If anybody comes up with a genuinely reliable defense against ballistic
and cruise missiles, I'd give the world less than ten more years of peace.
Incidentally, I'd give the world less than ten more years of peace at the moment, but
that's because of the preponderance of doltish psychopaths in governments. It's interesting,
however, that a doltish psychopath like Macron is nevertheless capable of realising that
France is vulnerable to the intermediate-range nuclear missiles which the U.S. is currently
unleashing on the world, and therefore is trying to, er, have a conference about banning the
use of naughty weapons and about promoting world peace.
Stephen has won the gallery with the claim that repeated crises failing to result in systemic
failure of the world diplomatic system (that is, causing world war,) on a an easily
predictable schedule shows obviously it is entirely possible for us to go back to a world of
sovereign nations like before the US hegemony and have endless crises with nary a collapse.
It's like the capitalist economy that way. "We" are now so wise that we can avoid the follies
of our predecessors, who are obviously stupid, which is proven by their being dead, dead,
dead.
I am sure Stephen has also won hearts and minds with the claim Russian conquests
against Turkey meant the extension of the Russian empire rather than the creation of the
states of Montenegro, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria. But perhaps people think those new
countries came complete with serfdom; extensive church lands and widespread monasticism;
aristocratic estates and caste privileges; relative absence of cities, etc. That is, the new
states were non-capitalist because absolutist monarchy isn't capitalist.
(I'm not familiar with Perry Anderson because leftist and foreign means it will not be
easily available in the US outside elite libraries. But if Perry Anderson thinks absolutism
and mercantilism were not part of the transition to capitalism, I believe he is gravely
mistaken. Defining "capitalism" as the most refined bourgeois democracy in the imperial
metropole is popular, because it is so usefully apologetic, yet it is still nonsense.)
Last and least, reason@21 utters the preposterous claim "utopian ideologies" have killed
more people than anything else. (The comment seems to include ironoutof cavalry, but I'm sure
ironoutofcavalry, like Stephen and reason, are resolutely complacent about social evils,
because, anti-utopian.) Personally I think business as usual, not utopian ideology, had
everything to do with the great Bengal famine circa 1770 (not the WWII one.) Etc. etc. etc.
in a litany that would sicken the soul, were it not fortified by the conviction it is utopian
ideology that is the spirit of evil.
"Sadly, it seems as if everything important has already been forgotten".
But Von Clownstick just remembered it was "them Germans" – and sadly not one comment
here was about Macron reminding US that "everything important" is how to deal with
"Nationalism"?
– and about:
"But now that everyone who served in that war has passed away, along with most of those who
remember its consequences, the tone has shifted to one of glorification and jingoism".
Didn't the French and the Germans mention that it is now 70 years that these "Archenemies"
at peace? – and I think to this "Armistice Day" the first time even the Germans were
invited? – but how true there was a "shifted tone" by the German Baron Von Clownstick
–
(who somehow still pretends he is "American"?)
Britain tried to negotiate an end to the naval arms race with Germany at least twice
before 1914. Germany was not interested. After 1905 Russia was also keen to avoid conflict.
The proponents of this policy lost credibility due to German sabre-rattling and insouciant
reversals by Vienna.
– and for everybody who might have missed it – let me explain what was going on
at this "Armistice Day".
Baron von Clownstick was very, VERY unhappy -(not only because he was afraid to ruin his
hair) BUT also – BE-cause as he always says "we built the best Arms" – "the most
beautiful weaponry" – and when he always told them Germans and them French and all
these other Nato members to pay more for Nato he was hoping for more Sales of US Arms BUT
then this Macron dude -(and now also Merkel) suddenly were talking about "Europeans
protecting themselves" -(and NOT buying more US weapons) and that made Von Clownstick very,
VERY sad – as his funny tweets about the US not wanting to protect Europe anymore
– if Europe wasn't "pony up" came to let's call it – to "fruition" – or a
classical "protect me from what I want" – and THAT's what happened on this –
"Armistice Day" –
(besides the danger for Von Clownsticks hair)
Just wading in a bit to say that "Revolutionary Socialism" is one of those labels that
obfuscates more than it reveals. Lenin, Debs, and Luxembourg were all contemporaries who
believed in Socialism and revolution, but they didn't all believe in the same "Revolutionary
Socialism." Just look at the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks for proof that even seemingly
small distinctions in what it means to be "revolutionary" have huge implications.
People seem to have settled on using "Revolutionary" as a code word to mean "violent,
dangerous, and radical," or "serious, committed, and effective," depending on their politics,
while "Democratic" is treated as being the opposite (for good or ill), but it's a false
dichotomy. Pacifists can be radical, democrats can be thuggish, and democracy can be
revolutionary or counterrevolutionary, and "effectiveness" is subjective. Given that even
with conventional definitions, it's not always easy to see which of the two camps a
particular Socialist falls under (and many of them changed factions), it's probably best to
clarify what type of revolution you're talking about up front.
er, Peter T, Britain wanted to end the naval arms race with Germany because it was ahead and
in complete control of European seas. It was Britain which had introduced the Dreadnought
battleship and the battlecruiser. It's rather like the American calls to restrict the number
of nuclear weapons and discourage countries which don't have them from acquiring them.
I won't say that German sabre-rattling wasn't a factor in promoting European crisis.
However, it's hard not to see the Russian military buildup in Europe between 1905 and 1914 as
anything other than preparation for war (however inept it turned out to be in practice), and
of course the Russians were heavily involved (diplomatically) in the Balkan wars. It
certainly wasn't the Austrians who orchestrated the murder of their heir to the throne, and
if Britain were to grow grumpy at Syria murdering Prince Charles I would hardly call that
"insouciant".
Wars are a strategy for male reproduction. Invade. Kill the competing men. Impregnate the
women. Enslave and trade women as reproductive property. Repeat. It's what men have done for
centuries.
Eg. Iceland
. ""This supports the model, put forward by some historians, that the majority of females
in the Icelandic founding population had Gaelic ancestry, whereas the majority of males had
Scandinavian ancestry,"
Britain had roughly 70% of the world's merchant fleet, a world-wide empire tied together
by maritime communications and was critically dependent on sea-borne trade. This was not new
– it had been the situation since 1815. Germany set out to build a fleet specifically
designed to challenge Britain's control of its home waters (heavy on battleships, short
range). Britain responded by building the dreadnoughts, then by coming to an arrangement with
France so as to free up forces from the Med, all the while seeking a naval truce. One can
argue that Germany had every right to seek to diminish British naval dominance, but it was
surely both a foolish and an aggressive policy, given that it posed a threat no British
government could not respond to (the invasion of Belgium and German plans to annex the
Belgian coast were similar, in that they would place the High Seas Fleet across Britain's
major trade artery. In 1914 London was the greatest port in the world).
The Viennese insouciance I had in mind was in regard to the Bosnian annexation in 1909.
The details are in Dominic Lieven's Towards the Flame, but it was a typical bit of
Austro-Hungarian over-clever dickishness. It added a layer of distrust that was not helpful
in 1914.
What worried Germany the most was Russian railway-building, which threatened to make their
military planning more difficult. They saw 1914 as a narrow and shrinking window (much as
many of the same people saw war in 1939 as a last military opportunity). Indeed, they had
mooted war against Russia in 1906 and again in 1909.
It's overlooked that Europe had an established mechanism for resolving diplomatic crises
– either an international congress or a meeting of the affected powers (as at Vienna
1813, Berlin 1878, London 1912..). The Powers had imposed settlements in the Balkans on
several previous occasions, and could have done so this time. Britain and France proposed a
congress; Berlin refused.
While they all look similar to us, Germany really was much more militarist and much more
inclined to seek salvation from their dilemmas in war than the other powers. While all the
elites were in a febrile state, Germany's were in something close to a collective nervous
breakdown, isolated, truculent and fearful.
I am a big fan of Hobson's book "Imperialism, a study", written in 1902, that I believe
explain tendencies, that evidently were present in 1902 and before, that later exploded and
caused WW1 and WW2.
The general theory of the book is that capitalist countries face underconsumption problems
at home, due to the exceedigly low wage share (Hobson though is not a marxist so he doesn't
believes that this is the normal situation in capitalism).
This underconsumption forces capitalist countries to expand in the colonies, and ultimately
also to create an military/financial/industrial complex that becomes the valve through which
excess savings (due to underconsumption due to excessively low wages) can be reinvested.
I'll leave out a discussion if Hobson's economic theories make sense (I think they do) or
wether they are the same of marxist theories (I think they are the same expressed from
another point of view and with a more moderate approach), but I want to point out the chapter
about "the scientific defence of imperialism" (pp.162 onwards in the link), because it
clearly speaks of the "scientific racism" theories that are nowadays associated with fascism
and nazism.
Here a cite from p.163:
Admitting that the efficiency of a nation or a race requires a suspension of intestine
warfare, at any rate l' =trance, the crude struggle on the larger plane must, they urge, be
maintained. It serves, indeed, two related purposes. A constant struggle with other races
or nations is demanded for the maintenance and progress of a race or nation ; abate the
necessity of the struggle and the vigour of the race flags and perishes. Thus it is to the
real interest of a vigorous race to be " kept up to a high pitch of external efficiency by
contest, chiefly by way of war with inferior races, and with equal races by the struggle
for trade routes and for the sources of raw material and of food supply." " This," adds
Professor Karl Pearson," is the natural history view of mankind, and I do not think you can
in its main features subvert it." Others, taking the wider cosmic standpoint, insist that
the progress of humanity itself requires the main-tenance of a selective and destructive
struggle between races which embody different power and capacities, different types of
civilisation.
From this I think it's obvious how Italian fascism and German nazism were mostly an
extremisation of theories that were already present before WW1 (and Japanese militarism and
probably many other militarism that we prefer to forget today).
In fact Mussolini justified the entry of Italy into WW2 with the idea of a natural struggle
between nations/races/cultures.
Now the main question is: was Hobson correct to say that these theories were just covers
for economic interests, that in turn were caused by underconsumption?
Or to say the same thing from a more marxist standpoint, is it true that WW1 was caused by
various capitalist countries were forced by the capitalist need for continuous
growth/expansion to continually expand their colonial empires, and in the end they had to
clash one with the other?
I think it is true.
This doesn't mean that all war in history were caused by capitalism, before capitalism ever
existed. Hower this gives an answer to some of your questions, and specifically:
1) Why didn't the normal conditions of capitalist production give rise to a world war
before?
Because various capitalist powers hadn't already conquered most of the world, so they didn't
have to go directly at each other's throat before WW1.
2) Why didn't the normal conditions of capitalist production give rise to a world war
after WW2?
Because
(2.a) after WW2 the capitalist system in developed countries had a much higer wage share due
to government intervention and anyway excess savings were repurposed through Keynesian
policies and inflation, thus much less underconsuption,
and
(2.b) because after WW2 for some decades there was only one main capitalist pole, that was
the USA, that was the main proponent of this kind of keynesian policies, either because it
was wiser, or because of the menace of socialism, or for whatever the reason.
WLGR@29: You ask whether I am "under the impression that western Europe and the US never had
a revolutionary socialist tradition?" Well, definitely not, and I cannot see that I have
written anything that could lead you to form an honest opinion that I am, or even might be.
Nor can I see any basis for your belief that, disagreeing with you, I must be wholly ignorant
of Western mass politics. I would advise you to have less faith in your own powers of
telepathy.
To refresh your memory: I wrote that various good thing happened in states that did not
have to endure the catastrophic misfortunes of revolutionary socialism. And I cannot see how
you can dispute either that states which were historically ruled by revolutionary socialists
suffered catastrophes; or that many European and other states, though never ruled by
revolutionary socialists and so avoiding their catastrophes, acquired these good things.
Pre-emptive disclaimer: I am not of course claiming that all catastrophes have been due to
revolutionary socialism.
stj@33: with regard to Russo/Turkish history, I think you are rather confused. You seem to
think I claimed that "Russian conquests against Turkey meant the extension of the Russian
empire rather than the creation of the states of Montenegro, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria." I
didn't: I merely pointed out that the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-8 was not in any intelligible
sense a conflict between two capitalist states. But if you want to widen the discussion to
cover Russian conquests against Turkey, I must point out that (1) several such conquests did
in fact involve extension of the Russian empire: take a quick look at the history of Ukraine
and Crimea (2) the creation of Montenegro was a result of Austrian and Venetian victories,
not Russian (3) Russia never conquered any part of Serbia from the Turks, though Russian
support for autonomously rebellious Serbs was significant (4) a complicating factor in the
formation of Romania was the Russian invasion of the principalities of Wallachia and
Moldavia, followed by an attempt to incorporate them into the Russian empire: many Romanians
preferred Ottoman rule (5) Bulgaria, you're right for once, that was a direct and
uncomplicated result of Russian conquest followed by creation of a new state. Which I never
said it wasn't.
I really do think it would be a good idea for you to read Perry Anderson's thoughtful and
erudite works before dismissing them; they may be more accessible than you think. I don't
know if your socialist principles would allow you to use the capitalist outfit Amazon
yourself, but if so Anderson's Lineages of the Absolutist state is available at $29.95 plus
postage. I would also recommend on a rather different topic Passages from Antiquity to
Feudalism, same price: second-hand copies of either are a little cheaper.
Wasn't World War I the result of Germany pursuing conquest?
World War 1 was equally the result of Britain 'pursuing conquest', i.e. its decades-long
ambition to expand its empire into the Near and Far Easts. Josh Marshall is, I'm afraid, an
unreconstructed Anglophile who also believes silly claims that the British went back to
'peace' (whatever that may be for a militarised empire) after WWI.
MFB @ 39
Correct. From contemporary accounts, we know that those members of the public who were
paying attention at the time could see the various empires building up to war for years
beforehand.
Marxist explanations work better for some events than for others; I don't think they work
particularly well for WW 1, though they aren't completely irrelevant.
I don't keep up with the historiography (e.g., the probably endless debate btw the Fischer
school and its critics/opponents), but one can distinguish btw contingent and deeper causes.
The latter were both 'ideational' (e.g., hypernationalism; views of war in general; 'cult of
the offensive'; influence of Social Darwinist and racialist perspectives on intl relations;
relative weakness of the peace mvts and their msg; dominant styles of diplomacy; etc.) and
'material' (e.g., problems faced by the multinational empires, esp. Austria-Hungary; rigidity
of mobilization plans; economic and political pressures on ruling elites; etc.), though the
distinction between ideational and material is somewhat artificial.
I'm not sure which among all the historical works is most worth reading (J.C.G. Rohl was
mentioned by someone in a past thread on this topic, and there were a lot of books published
around 2014 on the centenary of the war's start); but istm James Joll's work, among others,
has held up pretty well. Political scientists/ IR people have also continued to publish on
this. (The last journal article I'm aware of is Keir Lieber's in Intl Security several yrs
ago [and the replies], though I'm sure there have been others since. And even though it's
old, S. Van Evera's piece from the '80s, "Why Cooperation Failed in 1914," is still worth
reading, for the copious footnotes to the then-extant historical work in English (and English
translation), among other things.)
MFB: "It was Britain which had introduced the Dreadnought battleship and the battlecruiser."
Hmm, wasn't the Dreadnought class a direct response to the Tirpitz Memorandum (1896) and
the subsequent German Navy Bill of 1898, the purpose of which was to build a battleship fleet
with which to confront the Royal Navy?
As regards the historical arguments about war guilt, there was a strong pro-war faction in
nearly every European country, and even in Australia (on this last point, and the links to
the British pro-war faction, see Douglas Newton's Hell Bent ). The pro-war faction
prevailed nearly everywhere. Arguing about which pro-war faction was most responsible for
bringing about the war they all wanted seems pointless to me.
Moreover, once the war started, no-one wanted in power anywhere to bring it to an end on
any terms other than victory, annexations and reparations.
Looking specifically at the British government, since it seems to have the most defenders,
they first refused an offer of alliance from Turkey and then (when Turkey entered on the
German side instead) made a secret deal with France to carve up the Ottoman empire. As
mentioned in the OP, we are still dealing with the consequences today. That's not to excuse
the pro-war factions that dominated the governments of Germany, France, Russia,
Austria-Hungary, Italy etc.
A new report from Brown University is aiming to provide a close estimate of the cost of the
overall cost to the US government of its myriad post-9/11 wars and assorted global wars on
terror. The estimate is that $5.933 trillion has been spent through fiscal year 2019.
This is, of course, vastly higher than official figures, owing to the Pentagon trying to
oversimplify the costs into simply overseas contingency operations. It is only when one
considers the cost of medical and disability care for soldiers, and future such costs, along
with things like the interest on the extra money borrowed for the wars, that the true cost
becomes clear.
That sort of vast expenditure is only the costs and obligations of the wars so far, and with
little sign of them ending, they are only going to grow. In particular, a generation of wars is
going to further add to the medical costs for veterans' being consistently deployed abroad.
Starting in late 2001, the US has engaged in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan,
Yemen, and elsewhere around the world. Many of those wars have become more or less permanent
operations, with no consideration of ending them under any circumstances.
Congress commissioned a report from the National Defense Strategy Commission on Pentagon
readiness. It is relatively predictable what these reports would boil down to, because they
always come down to the same conclusion.
The report uses the typical scare-mongering to try to justify an increase in expenditures,
claiming that the US "might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia,"
and that the US might be "overwhelmed" in the even of two or more war fronts
simultaneously.
This echoes, if perhaps in even more dire terms, past reports that also claimed the constant
fighting of several wars is eroding readiness, and that the US needs to spend even more money.
The problem is, the increased spending has kept being approved, and every time, it leads to a
new round of reports warning that they need all the more money.
The US is always spending many-fold more money than anyone else, and fighting more wars than
anyone else. Yet despite nations like Russia increasingly limiting their military goals, the
reports are forever claiming Russia is seriously a threat to carry out attacks on the US
home-front. Such claims are preposterous, but have reliably worked in getting more money.
"... As the late great Gianbattista Vico noted that sovereign states cannot maintain any sovereignty or security as a state forever if it tries to rule by hook or by crook or by brute force eventually the state will self destruct. ..."
"... it the crazed ot news from usa press briefing land today... " QUESTION: Yes, Hiba Nasr, Sky News Arabia. You said an enduring defeat of ISIS requires fundamental change in the Syrian regime. Can you explain more, please? AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Yes. The Syrian regime produced ISIS." All you need to know, lol... these cheap suits will lie publicly to the right crowd, lol.. ..."
Nuttyahoo has been around a long time. It would be nice not to hear from him or look at him
again. Don't know how anyone could be worse than Nutty. He's an evil SOB.
Lieberman is also a nasty guy. The two of them gone will be nice.
As long as Israel holds the concept that ALL of it belongs to them and none of it
belongs to the Palestinians, then nothing will ever be peaceful and just.
Sort of like the US and Manifest Destiny and its modern counterpart - Full Spectrum
Dominance.
74% disapprove of Nuttyahoo's Gaza performance , but 69% disapprove of Lieberman's. The
item also provides poll results for political parties if elections were held today. If
elections aren't held until March, Nutty has @4 months for events to wash this memory from
voter's minds. But with the great fragmentation of Zionistan's political factions, any
number of potential coalitions are possible, some touting Nutty as PM again. For now, Nutty
will have Defense Ministry cabinet portfolio; perhaps he'll be the one to order the
challenge to Syria's S-300s in hopes of saving his political skin.
Bibi is a defacto dictator. Those resigning in protest are even more right wing and blood
thirsty than Bibi, making him look almost reasonable by comparison. I see nothing positive
here, but feel free to grasp for what to me seem like illusionary straws.
Lieberman's been described as the "Jewish
Isis" ; so, his demise seems positive. The polling I posted says neither Jewish Isis or
Nutty's performances were warranted--apparently, Zionistan's polity knows it was the
specforces op that broke the cease fire, thus IDF guilty not Hamas.
Zionistan's internal political turmoil's been on the rise awhile, but that fact's been
suppressed by BigLie Media until now. Essentially the same policies have been
proposed/followed for the past two decades by a similar set of politicos and have mostly
ended in failure, with Zionistan more fearful and isolated than ever despite BigLie media
spin. There's really only one possible direction to take, but who will have the courage to
propose it as the solution?
My oh my the troubled world of Israeli zionist politics.
The only good thing about this fiasco is that this could bring down the rabid Likudniks
and their rabid coalition to an end.
The bad thing is that in Israel their exists no Hebraic political class that does not
define itself with Zionism. Hence are the alternative political parties ready to accept
Arab semitic self determination? I myself doubt this very much. Remember Anglo-American
zionist the likes of Adelson is a known Likudnik but is also a realist just like other
fellow US oligarchs can purchase influence the other side of politics KOCH brothers anyone,
the seven sisters (Big Oil) and Big Pharma.
Zionist of all breeds and races and religions know very well if Arab semitic self
determination is allowed this will be the nail in the coffin to the colonial outpost known
as Israel.
The Political class in Israel need the US and their are enough satraps in the Five eyes
countries that regardless of whom is in political power in Israel it will be still
considered an occupying force and will never allow Arab semitic self determination.
Post Scriptum: As the late great Gianbattista Vico noted that sovereign states
cannot maintain any sovereignty or security as a state forever if it tries to rule by hook
or by crook or by brute force eventually the state will self destruct. Further more
Hebraic zionism per se is a modern era construct just like Bolshevism. Hence unlike Arab
semites that have never left the so desired land by the western colonialist are aboriginal
in nature, form and construction.
Docius In Fundem: Long live a free and liberated Palestine
Nah, it isn't that he disagrees with this plan, rather that he regards it as political
death to be seen to be associated with it.
b: "He wants to wage war against Hamas and defeat it."
Nah, he wants to be Prime Minister of Israel, and he thinks that if he is associated
with any ceasefire plan with Hamas then he will never get that gig.
He no more wants to "wage war against Hamas" than he really wants to go out of his way
to "kill Ismail Haniyeh".
It is all sloganeering, and it is a sad reflection of the Israeli voting public that
Israeli politicians like Lieberman know - with a certainty - that they can't get to the top
without loudly shouting that they'll kill everybody and anything that annoys the Israeli
voter.
The Zionist problem is that Crimea was snatched from its grasp after decades of scheming
and lusting. At that point the Israelis had nowhere else to go. They are stuck, and must
either emigrate out into the world or learn to live with Semites.
Israel must begin to look inward. All other horizons are closed to it.
it the crazed ot news from usa press briefing land today... " QUESTION: Yes, Hiba Nasr,
Sky News Arabia. You said an enduring defeat of ISIS requires fundamental change in the
Syrian regime. Can you explain more, please? AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Yes. The Syrian regime
produced ISIS." All you need to know, lol... these cheap suits will lie publicly to the
right crowd, lol..
psychohistorian has a point. Incredibly May has just pulled off the same stunt using the
spectre of Corbyn as PM to scare the euros and despite the squeals from tory caricatures
such as jacob rees-mogg, likely the rabid leaver gang in her own team as well.
Lieberman is on a rise and for the post at the top, israel has always been evil check
out the rapes and murders used to drive out the indigenous population when the zionists
started of this mess, but it will never go back to the way it was before 1990.
Herbert Bush and W Clinton saw to that when they forced the refuseniks coming outta the
former USSR to pick israel not amerika. One million of the twisted ashkenazi f**kers split
to Palestine and old school pretend caring and sharing zionism was gone for ever.
Those cruel fools will back Lieberman and with any luck that will be the end of
universal support for zionists. What mbs did to Saudi Lieberman will do in spades to the
apartheid state.
He has no filter his support comes from shouting "lynch the n1**ers" at every
opportunity (there is a vid around of him accusing the people of Gaza of being cannibals -
completely evidence free but was a sound bite to remember) & must imagine the entire
world is composed of the same sort of entitled sociopathic pr1cks who temporarily inhabit
soon-to-be Palestine.
Yes the story has been told before. What is interesting in this thread is that we are
seeing a number of commentators that come from real old school Jewish Orthodox backgrounds.
A decade back we would be hearing from liberal Zionist giving us the "only democracy in the
ME", "made the desert bloom", "most educated people on the planet" and many other myths
that Uris propagated in his Exodus .
Today those liberal Zionists have gone into retreat. Instead we are hearing this good
old fashioned Old Testament thumping. I think this is a good sign. It is so much easier to
dismiss them. That is the good news. The bad news is that these fanatics have a majority in
today's Israel. In short, they have a finger on the Israeli Nuclear Bomb. At some point the
rest of the world may be forced to try to neutralize that nuclear threat. This could be one
very dangerous moment.
Really? When was that? Back when Israelis ran a bulldozer over Rachel Corrie, or years
earlier when Sharon corralled a camp of refugees in Lebanon so the good Christian Lebanese
allies could exter..minate them? How about further back when a million Palestinians were
ethnically cleansed during the Nakba?
@Circe
Indeed. Illan Pappe's scholarly work 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine' proves that esteem
and Israel are mutually exclusive concepts. At no time before, during or after its
formation has this colonial project ever earned the faintest degree of approbation. Blind
admiration is a reliable asset for the management of corps of enablers of oppression.
Netanyahu has managed to retain his position as PM since 2009 for a number of reasons but
one reason people tend to ignore is the utter cowardice of his rival politicians who one
would think would want to replace him. the supposed "Peace" MP in the Knesset were
unwilling to stand up to him for fear of being seen as too soft on the Palestinian and as a
result they withered on the vine as a totally useless and feckless group. I'm not aware of
even a single MP who still publicly supports a return to the 1967 border with minor
territory swaps.
The warhawks on the other hand have constantly threatened to collapse the government
over the past 5 years but when push came to shove they always supported Netanyahu to save
the coalition government, pretty clearly because they realised that if they collapsed the
government they would be the logical group to take over (since the "pro-peace" groups no
longer exist). this would result in the hardliners having to soften their stances slightly
on at least some issues to make a coalition, so instead they stayed in the coalition to
slowly put more and more of their policies into practice by blackmailing Netanyahu. Given
what Netanyahu has done to Gaza over the past 5 years alone it's horrifying to think of him
as anything remotely close to a moderate but through their strategy the hardliners have
succeeded to getting their policy positions accepted as the new normal for Israeli and they
now feel confident enough to throw Netanyahu overboard and make an open own power play.
When people talk about voting for the lesser of two evils, this is the danger that can
come about, move the political debate more and more to the extreme to the point that a man
like Netanyahu (who was called an extremist in the 90's by Israeli's own newsmedia) is now
being talked about as a "Moderate".
I'm sure Gaza will be harshly abused by whatever government Israeli ends up with and
that hundreds (perhaps) thousands will be killed by the new government. But I'm more
interested in how Iran, Syria and Hezbollah will respond if the hardliners take over the
government and follow through with their threats to launch a huge massacre of the
Palestinians in Gaza.
Just
days into a ceasefire with Gaza, the Israelis sent commandos in to assassinate a Hamas
leader. Hamas then surprised Israel with more than 400 rockets in retaliation, leading to
another ceasefire agreed by Netanyahu. But this time his defense minister was having none of
it. He wants a conflict and is threatening to bring down the government if he does not get
one. What's next? Tune in to the Ron Paul Liberty Report:
by Justin
Raimondo Posted on November 15,
2018 November 14, 2018 We don't really hear all that much about Melania Trump in the
media except occasional digs at her immigration status and a few daring photos. That's
because the FLOTUS is one of the few unreservedly good things about this administration, and
of course the media doesn't want to go there. Her grace, her reserve, her remarkable calm at
the epicenter of a tumultuous White House, and, strikingly, her sense of style (and I don't
just mean her clothes) puts her on a different plane from the Washington circus that
surrounds her.
She had managed to keep her distance from the cutthroat politics of the Beltway, that is,
until her
collision with Mira Ricardel, National Security Advisor John Bolton's top aide and
enforcer. Ricardel apparently disparaged the First Lady to other members of the White House
staff, and tried to withhold resources from her on her recent trip to Africa. Whatever
personal interactions of an unpleasant nature may have passed between these women, it's hard
to imagine what provoked the office of the FLOTUS to issue the following statement :
"It is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she no longer deserves the
honor of serving in this White House."
Ricardel is described by those who know her as abrasive, a bureaucratic in-fighter, and
one "who doesn't suffer fools lightly." Having mistaken the First Lady for a fool, Ms.
Ricardel is the one who will suffer – along with Bolton, who has protected her since
her appointment from a chorus of critics, but who cannot stand against Melania.
So Team Bolton is on the outs, which means the America Firsters within the administration
who oppose our foreign policy of globalism and perpetual war are on the rise. Which leads us
to contemplate the meaning of this incident. The War Party's ranks are not filled with Mr.
Nice Guys. They are nearly all of them pushy self-serving aggressive SOBs, with about as much
personal charm as a rattlesnake.
I'm reminded of an essay by the
conservative philosopher Claes Ryn, professor of politics at Catholic University, in which he
describes the obnoxious behavior of the children of our political class in a local
MacDonald's just inside one of the Beltway's more prestigious neighborhoods:
"Deference to grown-ups seems unknown. I used to take offense, but the children have
only taken their cue from their parents, who took their cue from their parents. The adults,
for their part, talk in loud, penetrating voices, some on cell phones, as if no other
conversations mattered. The scene exudes self-absorption and lack of self-discipline.
"Yes, this picture has everything to do with U.S. foreign policy. This is the emerging
American ruling class, which is made up increasingly of persons used to having the world
cater to them. If others challenge their will, they throw a temper tantrum. Call this the
imperialistic personality – if 'spoilt brat' sounds too crude."
The Imperialistic Personality, indeed! It seems Ms. Ricardel had one too many temper
tantrums so that even in the permissive atmosphere of Washington, D.C., it was too much.
There are a lot of imperialistic personalities in that particular location, it seems, for one
reason or another. But things are different in Donald Trump's Washington, and even if we have
to take down the Ricardels one by one, just think of the numbers we can rack up in the next
six years.
A NOTE TO MY READERS : My apologies for the short column: I have some medical
issues to take care off this week and I'm a bit pressed for time.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
ALI ABUNIMAH: Yeah, it can be very intimidating and disruptive on a personal level. And you know, there are certainly stories
of students feeling that in the film, and that we've also reported on for many years. But I think people should look at the big picture;
that this operation the film reveals, that Israel has been spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on, Israel and its lobby
groups, and people like Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump's biggest campaign donor, and people like Adam Milstein, who is named in the
film as- he's an Israeli-American financier, a convicted tax dodger who is named in the film as one of the main funders and founders
of the anonymous smear site Canary Mission, which tries to destroy the reputations of college students so that they can't get jobs.
It is very scary for individuals. But the big picture here is that Israel is losing the support of progressive segments of society,
big time. We see that in poll after poll. Just last month there was a poll by YouGov for the Economist that showed a collapse in
support for Israel among progressives, among liberals, among younger people, among people of color. And that the strong support for
Israel now looks exactly like Donald Trump's base. It's white, it's male, it's very right wing.
And so I think the film should be seen not so much as a testament to the success of the Israel lobby, but of its failure. The
fact that they have had to mount this massive operation, and it has not been able to staunch the hemorrhage of support for Israel,
I think really should encourage people that speaking out is the right thing to do. The more normalized that it becomes to talk about
Palestinian rights, the less power the smear and intimidation tactics have. So the message I think people should take away is speak
up more, not less, because we're winning.
BEN NORTON: Well, we'll have to end it there. We were speaking with Ali Abunimah, who is the co-founder and editor of The
Electronic Intifada. The Electronic Intifada is an award-winning news website that published this censored Al Jazeera documentary
with an undercover reporter investigating the Israel lobby in the United States. Thanks for joining us, Ali.
Transparency and knowledge is the key to dis-empowering the power elite and empowering everyday people. Israel's suppression
of this film is a clear example of information control. Thank you Ali Abunimah and The Electronic Intifada for helping relieve
the yolk of information asymmetry with regards to Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Israel's manipulation of American policy.
I wrote a letter to my U. S. senator, critical of accepting "contributions" from an ardently pro-Israel government lobbying
group. The FBI showed up in the neighborhood and called to interrogate me. This for holding my (so-anointed "liberal") senator
accountable to act in the "best interests" of constituents!
Totalitarianism and fascism are creeping forward, and the governments
of Israel and its US collaborators -- in every branch and level of government -- are its leading proponents. What the Zionists
do is not only unconstitutional, it's seditious.
A lot of us in the human race don't look lightly upon truly seditious behavior,
such as that carried out every day by the U. S. government on behalf of multinational corporations and foreign agents in direct
violations of U. S. laws. Indeed, a lot of us consider sedition a capital crime, with all its attendant accountability implied.
Series Content Al Jazeera's undercover film The Lobby –
USA, censored by Qatar, has finally been published by The Electronic Intifada. Editor Ali
Abunimah discusses the documentary's explosive revelations, exposing Israel-backed attacks on
US activists
If this is Trump policy, then Trump is 100% pure neocon. It took just three months for the Deep state to turn him.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse. ..."
With the newly reimposed US sanctions against
Iran having little to no perceivable economic impact, national security adviser John Bolton
is talking up his plans to continue to escalate the sanctions track, saying he will "
squeeze
Iran until the pips squeak ."
Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying
that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined
to see it keep getting worse.
Bolton went on to predict that the European efforts to keep trading with Iran would
ultimately fail. He said the
Europeans are going through the six stages of grief , and would ultimately led to
European acceptance of the US demands.
Either way, Bolton's position is that the US strategy will continue to be
imposing new sanctions
on Iran going forward. It's not clear what the end game is, beyond just damaging
Iran.
My study of Jewish ID politics suggests that America isn't just influenced by one Jewish
lobby or another. The entire American political-cultural-spiritual spectrum has been
transformed into a internal Jewish exchange. Most American do not see the true nature of the
battle they participate in and, for the obvious reasons, their media and their academics do not
help. It is more convenient to keep Americans in the dark.
America is rapidly moving towards a civil war. The divide isn't only ideological or
political. The split is geographical, spiritual, educational and demographical. In a
Vox article titled, "The Midterm Elections Revealed that America is in a Cold Civil War,"
Zack Beauchamp writes, "This is a country fundamentally split in two, with no real room for
compromise." Of the midterm election Beauchamp reports that "American politics is polarized not
on the basis of class or even ideology, but on identity One side open to mass immigration and
changes to the country's traditional racial hierarchy, the other is deeply hostile to it." He
correctly observes that "Republicans and Democrats see themselves as part of cultural groups
that are fundamentally distinct: They consume different media and attend different churches;
live in distinct kinds of places and rarely interact with people who disagree with them."
Despite this American schism, Israel and its Lobby are somehow able to influence both sides,
managing to finding pathways to the secluded corridors of both parties. Although Democrats and
Republicans can no longer talk to each other, it seems that both are happy to talk to Israel
and the Lobby. And it is at AIPAC's annual conference that these political foes compete in
their eagerness to appease a foreign state. This anomaly in American politics demands
attention.
As a former Israeli, I had not observed the effects of the Israel/ Jewish Diaspora dilemma
until I had my experience at the Student Union Hall in Britain. Israel was born with the
Zionist desire to eradicate the identity of Jews as cosmopolitans. Zionism promised to bond the
Jew with the soil, with a territory, with borders. Thus, it is consistent with the Zionist
paradigm that Israel is notorious for its appalling treatment ofasylum seekers, immigrants and,
of course, the indigenous people of the land. Israel has surrounded itself with separation
walls. Israel deployed hundreds of snipers in its fight to stop the March of Return – a
'caravan' of Palestinian refugees who were marching towards its border. Israel has been putting
into daily practice that which Trump has promised to deliver. For a Trump supporter, Israel's
politics is a wet dream. Maybe Trump should consider tweaking his motto in 2020 into 'Let's
make America Israel.' This would encompass building separation walls, bullying America's
neighbors, the potential to cleanse America of the 'enemy within,' and so on. It is not
surprising that in 2016
Trump beat Clinton in an Israeli absentee exit poll . The Israelis do love Trump. To them,
he is a vindication of their hawkish ideological path. Although during the election Trump was
castigated as a vile anti-Semite and a Hitler figure by the Jewish progressive press, once
elected,
Fox News was quick to point out that Trump was actually the 'First Jewish President.'
We can see that Israel, Trump and his voters have a lot in common. They want militant anti
immigration policies , they love 'walls,' they hate Muslims and they believe in borders. When
alt right icon Richard Spencer described himself on Israeli TV as "a White Zionist" he was
actually telling the truth. Israel puts into practice the ideas that Spencer and Trump can so
far only entertain. But the parallels between Israel and the Trump administration's Republican
voters is just one side of the story.
... ... ...
The story of Jewish political strength in America doesn't end there. A New York Jew can
easily metamorphosize from an hard-core Identitarian into rabid Zionist settler and vice
versa, but such a manoeuvre is not available to ordinary Americans. White nationalist
Richard Spencer can not make the political shift that would turn him into a progressive or a
liberal just as it is unlikely that a NY transsexual icon would find it possible to become a
'redneck.' While Jewish political identity is inherently elastic and can morph endlessly, the
American political divide is fairly rigid. Jewish ideologists frequently change positions and
camps, they shift from left to right, from Clinton to Trump (Dershowitz), they support
immigration in their host counties yet oppose it in their own Jewish State, they are against
rigid borders and even states in general, yet support the two state solution in Palestine
(Chomsky). Gentiles are less flexible. They are expected to be coherent and consistent.
It was this manoeuvrability that made PM Netanyahu's 2015 speech in front of a joint session
of Congress a 'success,' although it might well have been considered a humiliation for any
American with an ounce of patriotic pride. As we wellknow, Bibi can communicate easily with
both Republicans and Democrats just as he cansimultaneously befriend Trump and Putin. ....
Reading the article the thought came up 'when will the USA, the majority of USA citizens,
(begin to) realise that the era of USA foreign politics for internal political reasons, is
over, no longer affordable ?'
The 19th century USA Civil War was horrible, as with all civil wars it was, to a large extent
a foreign war.
If indeed again a USA civil war starts, I'm not optimistic about the possibility of
preventing it, not much of the present USA will still be there at the end, fysically.
And, will there still be a political USA when the fighting stops, or will it end as Germany,
the foreign victors creating the USA they want ?
A USA, as Germany now under Merkel, intent on destroying itself culturally ?
So good to see Gilad Atzmon here at Unz. I have read his two books, The Wandering Who?
and Being in Time , and can thoroughly recommend them.
These Jewish bodies tend to preach inclusiveness while practicing exclusivity.
But of course! They first begged for inclusion into our powers structures, then once we
complied, they returned the favor by taking them over and excluding us from them.
This is a bit reductive. This commenter does not recognize himself in the dichotomy above.
When forced to choose a race on bureaucratic forms, this commenter enters 'human.' Letting
them call you an American opens you up for intensely manipulative statist propaganda. And
when you know your rights – your human rights, as opposed to your bullshit half-assed
revoked constitutional rights – your race is incidental. You know that
nondiscrimination underpins your ethics and the law.
This sort of identity is certainly ferociously suppressed by the Israeli fifth column.
Falk is this kind of guy too, a Jew but so what, and look what they did to him. Ajamu Baraka
too. This overwhelming tidal wave of immigrants from the global south: they grew up with
human rights, including the crucial right to solidarity, which negates all the invidious
aspects of identity politics. Basically, as a human you side with underdogs worldwide:
Okinawans, Palestinians, landless Latin Americans, Africans, you name it. Cohesive social
forces are not confined to ethnic groups.
Tensions behind the Iron Curtain inside the US are incidental. The real conflict is us
humans versus overreaching states. Given the downtrodden nature of the US subject population,
this conflict is playing out mainly outside US borders. The left/right continuum has always
been a CIA construction. Statists and humanists array on an orthogonal axis, and that
contention continued when CIA rolled the old left up. Cosmopolitans have not gone away.
Israel may be infecting the US with statist divide et impera, but humanist institutions
are penetrating Israel too. Look what's happening as the HRC and other human rights treaty
bodies review Israel.
Israel is formally accused of interpreting its commitments in bad faith. This allows
treaty bodies to gang up and apply international criminal law to Israeli torture, murder, and
extermination. It's already happening to criminal US officials. Israel's next.
Atzmon is right re "New York Jews", them being potentially mutable. But, Israelis, being
normal nationalists, cannot show the same level of "shape-shifting". A multiculturalist
minority in one country can become other nation's nationalist majority. Just, Israeli
nationalists cannot become Israeli open borders advocates, multiculturalists, globalists etc.
Only a minority population, basically strangers in another country, can practice various
ways of behavior. Host, dominant culture in a country- cannot. Dershowitz can change
positions; just, both Netanyahu & any Israeli labor politician can not.
It's the hypocrisy that pisses everyone off with Jews. Few people, especially on the right,
have any issue with a nation defending itself. It's that the same Jews who are trying to
shove diversity/multiculturalism/refugees 49.Reuben Kaspate says: November 14, 2018 at 3:42
pm GMT Civil war? How soon are we talking here? Perhaps, the status quo will be the
foreseeable future just humming along. down our throats are either supportive or silent when
it comes to Israel making itself into a pure ethnostate behind barbed wire.
But at a certain point in my life, around my thirties, I started to find all of it too
exhausting. I wanted to simplify things. I demoted myself into an ordinary human being.
A lot of people want this, but ordinary humans beings also have to live in societies
– and quite sophisticated ones at that. Elected representatives (or leadership) need
responsibility and integrity for it to work.
THE US JOINS THE 3RD WORLD
Government responsibility and integrity are not guaranteed (notably in places like Africa
and S.E. Asia), but the United States is probably the leading example of a government failure
in an advanced society. In the US, like much of the 3rd world, special interests (minority
ethnic and commercial) loot the public through a corrupt bargain with the holders of
political power. Hillary Clinton was the classic example, with the same "Pay to Play"
philosophy as the usual leadership of the Philippines or the Congo.
The 3rd world antidotes are Nationalism and Populism, but having gained power, political
leaders usually sell out (sounds familiar). Also the public of the US have learnt to be
trusting, and find it hard to believe that they've been hit by a classic 3rd world
problem.
In the US, Zionists have looted $ trillions in support of their Special Interest (Israel)
and corporations have extracted many more $ trillions through the mass outsourcing of entire
industries, complete with their technology and supply networks to Asia. It's not engraved in
stone that US industry, had to relocated to Asia or Indians have to be recruited for its IT
work. Germany and Japan for example, have held onto their industrial leadership in recent
decades and the US could have done the same. At one time the US was the world leader in US
based automobile production (Detroit), steel, aluminium, camera and film, industrial
chemicals, communications equipment, computers and electronics, aircraft and aerospace (still
partly) etc. With what's left in mostly in services and retail (often looted by Hedge Fund
asset strippers).
In other words, under a genuine post WW2 "America First" policy involving top quality
national education, research and government support of leading industries, the US could still
be the world's leading industrial and economic power and not have to worry about debt,
deficits and social decline, and also find plenty of jobs for Latino migrants.
However, the US got instead its present 3rd world style corrupt elite who know that
nationalism is their Nº1 enemy.
Only Anglos can mount a nationalist challenge, hence the paranoia when Trump arrived on
the scene with his "America First" dialogue and Anglo base. In contrast, the whole apparatus
of the Zioglob/ deep state/MSM defence is Identitarian, and aimed at destroying the
foundations of Anglo society, with LGBT, "White guilt dialectics", multiculturalism,
exclusion from Ivy League universities, Hollywood slime, speech laws, statue demolition,
in-your-face Africanization, massive debt, political corruption, open frontiers and exporting
middle class jobs.
CHINA JOINS THE 1ST WORLD
The Chinese seem to be doing it right.They have an explicit national policy to gain and
hold top positions in key world industries and make it a joint national effort to succeed
(especially in national human development/education). Also when they find corrupt government
officials (even at high levels) they quickly put them on trial and shoot them.
Winston Churchill talked about this/these divisions in the Jewish people in the 1930s, back
before Israel became a Jewish ethnostate – he presented the main 2 divisions between
ethnic Jews who fell down in to the worst forms of Communism, Bolshevism, Anarchism in Russia
and Eastern Europe and those other ethnic Jews who were sort of doing OK being loyal to their
European/American countries especially England they lived in while also promoting a healthier
form of Zionism working for some eventual Jewish national state somewhere probably in then
British administered Palestine.
Zionism vs Communism – a struggle for the Jewish Soul:
Churchill didn't present the extremely bad alternative we had today:
Jews in the diasapora everywhere from Russia to Poland to Germany, France, England,
Canada, Sweden Australia, few left in South Africa our USA doing this:
Promoting Israel over everything as an exclusively Jewish ethno state with endless US, UK
other wars against Israel's neighbors and .
Promoting the worst forms of multi culturalism, open borders immigration in to the West,
Jewish media mafia domination/monopoly of the mainstream media, social media in USA, UK,
Sweden etc promoting the worst forms of porn, rap music, fake news, endless movies and TV
shows demonizing all White European men as evil Racists, rapists – promoting the worst
Jewish feminists/lesbians to the US Supreme Court, Rachel Maddow type news commentary
etc.
I have long admired your noble efforts on behalf of the Palestinian people. You often
write in ways that resonate with me, and I'm glad to see you here at The Unz Review.
Israel deployed hundreds of snipers in its fight to stop the March of Return – a
'caravan' of Palestinian refugees who were marching towards its border. Israel has been
putting into daily practice that which Trump has promised to deliver. For a Trump
supporter, Israel's politics is a wet dream.
But I have to tell you, you're waaayyy off with this characterization of Trump
supporters.
There are, I'm sure, a lot of brain-dead "Christian" Zionists who drool at the prospect of
slaughtered Palestinians, because murdering Christ's modern day relatives living in his lands
are the only way to force Jesus to return and give them their rapture. And I suppose there
are perhaps a fraction of a percentage point of people who actually want Trump to throw out
(or murder) all non-whites to create the kind of racial purity Bibi and his crew of
psychopaths are demanding for Israel.
But from what I've seen, and being one of them, as to the vast majority of what you call
"Trump supporters", the idea of murdering people in order to steal their land, is a monstrous
absurdity.
For the record, we voted for Trump to end the demonic reign of terror and mass
murder in the Middle East. The very kind of mass-murder and daily atrocities that were
cackling Hillary's ("we came, we saw, he died) and Bill's ("it's worth it") trademark.
We voted for Trump as a repudiation of those evils, that had long stained our national
soul, and indeed had made America the kind of place Bibi was pleased with.
We did not vote for Trump to murder and steal, or otherwise do anyone harm. We voted for
Trump to do the opposite, and end the Eternal Wars for Israel. No one on the Alt-right likes
the wars. We simply want to be left alone, to pursue our humble lives unmolested by
globalists and their nefarious designs for us. Is that so terrible?
. In fact, Israel has become a prime model for American nationalists.
with all due respect, that is a vile smear, Sir.
Where are these 'white nationalists' who're demanding we terrorize and murder and steal
other people's land? Eh?
For the record, white nationalists are today's Palestinians. What they're demanding is
that they don't have to give up the lands they have, and were born on, and be forced out to
make room for unlimited others. Or forced to assimilate to an Hispanic or Muslim culture and
way of life. Is that so egregious? To want to persevere as an American in an American
culture, with hostility to none, and trade with and good relations with all and any who
respond in good faith?
Why is it that all white people, from Europe to N. America and everywhere else, are all
expected to invite every non-white, non-Western, often hostile armies of (especially military
age young men) into our lands, and then treat them better than the indigenous, white second
class citizens?
What is it with that?!
Either Germans and Swedes and Americans hand over their nations or we're all going to be
called "Nazis" or "racists" or God help us, "Zionists".
WTF?
We can see that Israel, Trump and his voters have a lot in common. They want militant
anti immigration policies , they love 'walls,' they hate Muslims and they believe in
borders.
well, only the stupidest imbecile on the planet doesn't believe in borders. (or, an
ideologue that wants to see *certain* nations destroyed by armies of immigrants –
hostile or otherwise).
No one wants recognized borders more than the Palestinians. It is Israel that refused to
state its border, because it want to steal more land. How many Trump voters do you hear
talking about stealing other people's land? (I'm not talking about lunatics like Bolton.
American nationalists despise Bolton and McCain and all the rest of the Zionist, globalist
scum)
And I don't personally know of any reasonable American nationalist who 'hates Muslims'.
They just don't want them all here. Have you ever heard of Kosovo, Mr. Atzmon? There
are neighborhoods in Michigan that were Polish Catholic for generations. And they liked it
that way. They never hated Muslims or anyone else. But they do hate having their communities
taken over by alien peoples with alien cultures and now have to listen to 'calls to prayer'
at five in the morning every day. And demands for Sharia and other clashes with their former
way of life.
Are these people rabid Zionists demanding to murder people and steal their land, just
because they don't want throngs of Muslims coming in and transforming their community into
something they don't recognize or have any predilection for. Are they simply too racist and
hateful, and need to learn to assimilate? Eh?
I don't know who this Spencer guy is, and he sound like controlled opposition to me.
It would be wrong to equate nationalism with the frothing's of some so called
"white-Zionist". The only white Zionists I know of are the lunatic "Christian" Zionists.
The nationalists I know of simply want to be left -the fuck- alone!
Stop demanding that we hand over our country to people who don't appreciate it. (Indeed,
often hate it) Stop demanding that we doom our children to living in a nation that puts them
last in every way, behind every single non-white immigrate that can get to these shores. It
is insane to want to have people come to your nation who will be a burden, who often hate you
and yours, not to mention your culture, and want to displace you. It is insane to insist that
millions of people come in and compete with your children on an un-level playing field. Every
non-White immigrant that comes here gets Affirmative Action promotions and jobs and
university preference over the white children who were born here. Unless you hate white
people, that state of affairs is insane.
And yet here we are being badgered as thieving, psychotic murderous goons (Zionists)
simply for wanting what every single sane person on the planet wants: to preserve our way of
life and hand it down to our progeny – for them to have a decent life and hope for
theirs in turn.
And yet somehow, if we have white skin, wanting this is the most evil and wicked and
racist thing imaginable!
@Rurik White nationalists are a mixed bunch, going from the very bad (as Atzmon) sees
them to, maybe, the peaks of sainthood you attribute to them.
The whole idea of legit owners of land is a rationalization: everybody (meaning: every
group) took from someone else the land where they are, and did so by combat and might.
Sure, in our more civilized times we'd like such things to be relegated in the past, borders
to become stable, and ethnic cleansing and warfare to be a closed chapter.
These are wishes and words about said wishes, though.
Do you own a swath of land in the countryside, by chance? I do, and over the years all of
the three of my neighbours have applied pressure to broaden their owned land so as to include
a bit more than mine. Being the first stripe allowed, they'd go on, until I were left with no
land at all, all of this while seeing themselves as honest.
Whoever owns land, and whoever doesn't have a need to believe Jews worse than other people
knows what human nature is like when it comes to property, borders, and expansion.
Do you own a swath of land in the countryside, by chance? I do, and over the years all
of the three of my neighbours have applied pressure to broaden their owned land so as to
include a bit more than mine.
I doubt your neighbors have attacked you, burned your land, cut off or poisoned your water
and then confiscated your house and land ..as is the case of Israel's theft of Palestine.
This is the 21 century, not the 17th or 18th century.
When we interrupt our travels to take a break, I approach a group of young Israeli soldiers,
themselves waiting for a bus. Anyone speak English, I ask? Sure, answers one good-looking kid.
His accent is familiar.
Where are you from?
Connecticut.
He turns out to be an Ohio State grad, serving a tour as a "lone soldier" -- a Jew but not
an Israeli -- in the IDF. There are thousands of them.
I have never been comfortable with this phenomenon. If a young American hankers to defend a
country, it strikes me that he ought to defend his own rather than someone else's. But this
Buckeye from Connecticut is obviously a fine upstanding fellow so I don't press him to
explain.
"... Israel's newly won "friends" in the leadership of Saudi Arabia and the UAE proved to be unstable and of little value. ..."
"... The Israeli army is cr*p these days, only capable of shooting down unarmed Palestinians. No-one wants to spend their lives fighting, ready to go off to war at any moment, rather than living normal Western lives. ..."
"... The Zionists politically unified the Gaza defense factions for the first time, which is a very important development that needed to occur long ago. ..."
"... If the 1973 War were to be waged again using today's forces, it's likely Zionistan would lose. The Cabinet infighting mirrors the growing divide within Zionistan's polity. Unfortunately, that divide doesn't seem to be producing an alternative political party that's anti-Apartheid and favors a One State solution. Hard to argue with b's concluding assessment. ..."
"... This appears to be a planted explosive after the bus was emptied out -- except for the driver who was sacrificed. It certainly does not look like a Kornet as shown in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw ..."
"... The US and Israel are doing their best to encourage a multi-polar world able to oppose their reckless actions, although there's still a long way to go. The sooner both nations start to behave in a more circumspect manner, the safer the world will be. ..."
"... I have often wondered how does the Israeli economy stay afloat ..."
"... Never has Israel been so powerful and dominant and never has Israel's power seemed so impotent. Israel's nuclear weapons may deter other countries but they are useless against Palestinians unless Israel really wants to launch such weapons against itself. ..."
"... What will become of Israel? How will the region deal with it as, over time, it is increasingly defeated and forced to supply proofs that it deserves to exist? What answer will it make, as it throws away all semblance of community? ..."
"... I see Trump as clearly representative of the global elite that are having to kill their current empire host without being certain of how they can live with or make China's socialism with a Chinese face be controlled by an ongoing world of global private finance. ..."
"... Trump is their public face deal maker and I will agree with Peter AU 1 that Kissinger is the global elite's behind the scenes deal maker. I have written here before that Trump will default on US debt before he is out of office, IMO. ..."
"... Can the global elite pressure the world's nations into their continued existence as the jackboot of global finance? Despite the wild and crazy of grifter Donald Trump I still believe that reason is about to triumph over faith in the hallowed halls of global finance......and Israel is the proxy front for that lost faith in monotheistic religions with better than others value, bias and use of victimization. ..."
Last week a ceasefire was
agreed upon between Palestinian factions in Gaza and Israel:
The aim of the change, in a plan mediated by Egypt and with money supplied by Qatar, is to provide much-needed relief for Gaza,
restore calm on the Israeli side of the border and avert another war.
On Sunday night Israeli special forces
broke the ceasefire by invading
Gaza under disguise. Such incursions happen
quite often but are
usually left unreported. The invaders wore civilian clothing and some were cloaked as women. Their cars arrived at the house of a
local Qassam commander but suspicious guards held them up. A firefight ensued in which 7 Palestinians and 1 Israeli officer were
killed. It is not clear what the intent of the Israeli raid was. A car left behind held what appeared to be surveillance equipment.
The intruders fled back to Israel.
It is likely that rivalry within the Israeli government was behind this provocation:
[T]he perception that Israel, by allowing the fuel and cash shipments into Gaza, was paying off Hamas set off acrimonious wrangling
between two rival right-wing members of Israel's security cabinet.
Earlier Sunday, Education Minister Naftali Bennett called the cash infusion "protection money." Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman
accused Mr. Bennett of having supported such payments and of having opposed in recent weeks the more aggressive military reprisals
against Hamas that Mr. Lieberman favored.
...
By night's end Mr. Netanyahu had cut short his trip [to Paris] and was flying back to Israel in response to the Gaza hostilities.
Did Lieberman order the incursion to undercut Netanyahoo ceasefire and his rival Bennet?
The breach of the ceasefire by Israel set off another round of tit for tat strikes. A commando unit of Hamas' Qassam brigade launched
an attack against a bus that had carried Israeli soldiers to the border. To avoid further escalation the shooter waited until the
soldiers were out of the way before hitting it. Only the driver was injured. Then the Israeli air force destroyed the al-Aqsa TV
station in Gaza city after notifying the Palestinians of its intent. It also damaged a university building. Rocket volleys from Gaza
followed and the Israeli air-force hit several buildings. After 48 hours the ceasefire was renewed.
During the conflict the Palestinian side demonstrated a series of new capabilities:
The Palestinian command published a video of the
strike against the bus by a Kornet anti-tank guided missile (ATGM). Since it lost dozens of tanks to ATGM attacks in the 2006
war against Hezbullah in Lebanon, the Israeli army is extremely afraid of such missiles. The arrival of these weapons in the besieged
Gaza will be a serious concern.
The Palestinians also
launched
over 460 artillery missiles and mortars within 25 hours. This by far exceeds the firing rate during Israel's 2014 war on the Gaza
strip. Some of these missiles had a larger range then previous models. Israel's Iron Dome missile defense systems fired some 100
missiles but their accuracy is questionable and the price high. Each Iron Dome missile costs some $65,000 while a mortar round
or rocket costs a few hundred dollar. Many of the Palestinian rockets reached their targets in the Zionist settlements Ashkelon,
Netivot, and Sderot.
Israel announced only two hits on missile launching cells. It seems that the Palestinians have perfected their camouflage
and remote firing capabilities.
The rival Palestinian groups in Gaza -Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others- operated under a central command. No group claimed
missile strikes for itself. In the past each volley of missiles was followed by a news statement in which this or that group claimed
responsibility. This time all groups worked from a common operations room. None released responsibility claims or other information
that would help Israel's intelligence.
Earlier Tuesday, the Political-Security Cabinet meeting that convened following the escalation in the south came to a halt after
seven hours. After hearing the army's and the security establishment's assessments, the cabinet instructed the IDF to continue
to operate in Gaza as necessary.
All the officials from the defense establishment who participated in the cabinet meeting -- IDF chief of staff, the head of
Military Intelligence, the head of the Shin Bet, the head of the Mossad, and the head of the NSC -- supported the Egyptian request
for a cease-fire .
...
" If we had intensified the attacks, rockets would have been fired at Tel Aviv ," senior cabinet officials said.
Since 15:30 local time today the situation is again quiet and calm. But the squabbling within the Israeli cabinet immediately
resumed:
All the ministers -- including Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Minister Naftali Bennett -- did not object to a cease fire.
Following this report, the Defense Ministry said that Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman's support of a cease-fire deal were
"fake news." The statement said that the Defense Minister's position was consistent and had not changed. Ministers Naftali Bennett,
Ayelet Shaked and Ze'ev Elkin also said they did not support a cease-fire deal with Hamas.
In total 13 people were killed in Gaza and at least 2 on the Israeli side. A Hamas spokesperson
accused Lieberman of being responsible for the breach of the ceasefire and demanded that Netanyahoo fires him.
The short conflict demonstrated that:
Israel is deterred. It does not want to launch another war on Gaza.
The siege of Gaza, by Israel, Egypt and by the Palestinian authority under Mahmoud Abbas, failed. The reputational cost of
the siege became too high after Israel killed some 160 Palestinians during weekly protests along the demarcation fence. It had
to allow diesel fuel and money from Qatar to reach Gaza.
The siege failed to prevent that Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other groups acquired a larger number of missiles and other new
capabilities.
The Palestinians in Gaza are united. The resistance against the occupation is alive and well.
For decades the Zionist entity was able to attack its neighbors as it pleased. That changed. It no longer dares to step into Lebanon
for fear of Hezbullah's reprisal. Syria's western airspace is closed for Israel thanks to the new S-300PMU2 air defense Russia delivered
to the Syrian army. Israeli special forces botched their incursion into Gaza and the Iron Dome missile defense proved to be to faulty
to protect Zionist settlements. The resistance in Gaza has new capabilities and surprises for Israel should it again attack.
The short conflict in Gaza only demonstrated that Israel is weak and that its downward trend continues.
Posted by b on November 13, 2018 at 02:52 PM |
Permalink
Comments The Israeli army is cr*p these days, only capable of shooting down unarmed Palestinians. No-one wants to spend their
lives fighting, ready to go off to war at any moment, rather than living normal Western lives. That probably had something to
do with the failure of the original raid - they left behind their (specially equipped) car, did they? Only the air force is any good,
and, lo and behold, it had to be brought in to recover the situation.
This appears to be a planted explosive after the bus was emptied out -- except for the driver who was sacrificed. It certainly
does not look like a Kornet as shown in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw
The sooner Israel returns to being Palestine, where Jewish folks who want to live in the ME can do so in peace with their neighbours,
the better. The violent murderous destructive settler ethnics please go home, ta.
The hornet attack on the bus is in all likelyhood faked, around 26 seconds in your tube video at least 8 IDF are at the front of
the bus chatting, at around 46 seconds they are gone. We hear the sound of the missile being fired but are unable to see it tracking
the target as it moves in.
If fear for Tel Aviv was a motivation, an additional conclusion might be the Israeli's have little real faith in their Iron Dome
-- no?
Where is Iran in this story, that Lieberman is so keen on?
There is a difference. The cameraman in the Abrams shot is close to the launcher and to the line of fire so the ATGM rocket
motor exhaust is clearly visible. In the IDF shot, the cameraman could be well away from the launch, even at right angles to its
line of flight, totally hiding the rocket motor. That said, it would be even more gutsy to have placed an IED where the IDF was
likely to gather and much cheaper. The ATGMs are more valuable against IDF armor. $1 million of US taxpayer money going up in smoke just like that.
The Zionists politically unified the Gaza defense factions for the first time, which is a very important development that needed
to occur long ago. The Zionist's response to perform a War Crime fits their behavioral norm to a Tee.
If the 1973 War were to
be waged again using today's forces, it's likely Zionistan would lose. The Cabinet infighting mirrors the growing divide within
Zionistan's polity. Unfortunately, that divide doesn't seem to be producing an alternative political party that's anti-Apartheid
and favors a One State solution. Hard to argue with b's concluding assessment.
This appears to be a planted explosive after the bus was emptied out -- except for the driver who was sacrificed. It certainly
does not look like a Kornet as shown in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw
Posted by: LJ | Nov 13, 2018 3:24:00 PM | 2
I agree, I think this was an Israeli False Flag to justify an invasion and I agree it is a bomb beneath the bus.
A Kornet has a distinctive undulating pattern and leaves a smoke trail, for example:
here is what a Kornet looks like hitting something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5xKCzdhAC8
thanks b... it sounds like none of the Israeli politicians want to own up to wanting a ceasefire.. why is that? is the idea of
projecting strength and aggressiveness the only posture Israel can take for the majority Israel religious orthodox voting public??
@6 john... i am curious... it sure looks to me like the usa is israels bitch... it's not just usa either.. one could include
canada, australia, uk and all the western poodles too... how does this event appear to make it look any different to you? thanks..
The US and Israel are doing their best to encourage a multi-polar world able to oppose their reckless actions, although there's
still a long way to go. The sooner both nations start to behave in a more circumspect manner, the safer the world will be.
I have often wondered how does the Israeli economy stay afloat. I am on the side of Israel. However it seems increasingly a losing
side. To survive they have had to adopt increasingly harsh and embarrassing measures. The only way to achieve victory is to ethnically
cleanse Arabs from the Middle East.
The Heart of Darkness
Rabbit Bomb Blues.
PeacefulProsperity , Nov 13, 2018 8:13:21 PM |
link
#18 - Gerard Butler hosted that event. His Malibu(?) house was just burned to the frame. Coincidence? I think not. He is all over
social media whining about it and people are actually calling him out. Maybe there's some hope for us after all.
Palestinians already know that Israel plans a genocide. Palestinians know that they will not be helped by the west or any other
country. Palestinians know that they have no voice and no way of countering the Israeli lobby. But where has this success really
got you and Israel?
I suggest that you are pursuing a path that means doom for both Palestinian and Israeli. You imagine that you can get rid of
Palestinians but lack the commonsense to see that this is impossible. You are building a future of (ever more) death and destruction.
There is another option (which you won't be interested in) and that is to change Israel from an apartheid state and grant equality
to Palestinians (including the right of return and restitution of property).
That you two could post such loathsome views indicates that you are completely unaware that you are staring into an abyss that
will consume both Palestinian and Israeli.
Never has Israel been so powerful and dominant and never has Israel's power seemed so impotent. Israel's nuclear weapons may
deter other countries but they are useless against Palestinians unless Israel really wants to launch such weapons against itself.
You need to wake up to the idea that Palestinian and Israeli might have a future together and consider that the path you are
following will bring a great tragedy to both sides.
My thoughts were identical - the single biggest development is the exhibited unity among the Palestinians. It does not spell
good for the expansionist apartheid bankrupt state (just like all its bankrupt Western bitches).
I also support renaming Gaza into Auschwitz, that was a brilliantly symbolic idea.
I am against renaming Gaza as Auschwitz. It is a transparent attempt to appeal to western/European sensitivities (which will not
work), will be nothing more than a publicity stunt, and is a denial of the unique Palestinian experience.
Probably more people in the world know of Gaza than they do of Auschwitz.
Thank you for putting that into words. The two entities are joined in an intimate embrace of destiny from which it seems that no single side can emerge alone. How
futile that Israel cannot see that its best chance to emerge as a nation, or at least as a people, is now, and that every day
it seeks to further reduce Palestine it furthers its own diminishing.
What will become of Israel? How will the region deal with it as, over time, it is increasingly defeated and forced to supply
proofs that it deserves to exist? What answer will it make, as it throws away all semblance of community?
@19 pp.. trump is no different.. hollywood and trump - 2 sides of the same coin.. both subservient to israel..
Posted by: james | Nov 13, 2018 8:21:21 PM | 20
Well that's wrong.
Trump can read the Zio-Jews like a book. They're so-o predictably evil and stupid. His unlawful and MEANINGLESS recognition of
Jerusalem as the capital of "Israel" encouraged them to put their mass-murdering skills on display while the
civilized world watched
in horror and revulsion.
As b points out, Lebanon has long been too dangerous for their peculiarly wussy brand of courage, Syria is now off-limits,
and now the Powerless Palestinians have made them re-think their aggressive idiocy. The fact that they've always been their own
worst enemy is rapidly coming home to roost...
Israel is the land of Ivanka and Kissinger. I think US vetos at the UNSC will continue. US embassy is now at Jerusalem and
Trump has declared it the capital of Israel.
@27 hw... we have to disagree then... israels mass-murdering skills have been on display prior to and during trumps position..
nothing has changed with regard to Israel's attitude, trump or no trump.. and frankly trump could give a shit.. The money continues
to flow to Israel and usa subservience continues... i wish it was different, but i am not into some pipe dream in thinking trump
has made any difference.. he hasn't.. you have much greater faith in trump then i..
I'm about 6,000 miles away from the current excitement, and can't read any of the languages. So I've got to rely on second and
third hand reports of everything . What I'm hearing through those slender grapevines is that there are bitter faction fights
within the government of the apartheid Jewish State. Another factor is that none of the 'leaders' known to me are exactly oozing
competence. When your major propaganda outlet starts whining about the stupidity, things aren't going well.
1) The S-300 air defense missiles Russia has deployed to Syria. Netanyahu's brief chat with President Vladimir Putin in Paris
on Sunday yielded no concurrence for the resumption of Israeli air strikes against Iran. It is now up to him to decide whether
to take this as a Russian embargo on Israel overflights, or to go ahead and risk resuming those air strikes. In the worst case,
the Israeli air force might have to operate on two fronts: Syria and Gaza.
No, that's not the worst case. Dozens of Russian cruise missiles skimming the treetops while heading for the air and naval
bases of the Apartheid State is worse than that. Frankly, I doubt if the murderous and thieving little nation is capable of overcoming
both the jamming and the S-300 systems. But what do I know? - if they manage to do it without killing any Russians, the Syrians
will probably be reinforced with even heavier air defenses. Right now Syria is a lose/lose proposition.
2) Israel has tied its hands with an ultimatum to Beirut to shut down Iran's workshops in Lebanon for adding precision-guidance
to Hizballah's surface missiles, or else face Israeli attacks to destroy them. There was no date on the ultimatum. But to carry
it through, every ounce of Israel's air force capabilities will be required. The question is how did Israel's policy-makers
failed to avoid a situation which paralyses its ability to operate against strategic foes in Syria and Lebanon?
Notice the despair. Who on earth was running his mouth with a promise to destroy those Hezbollah shops? Yet even that's a losing
proposition, for Hezbollah is doubtlessly running many fakes and decoys, and keeping everything on such a small scale they'll
be barely scratched, if touched at all. But could the pilots of the apartheid Jewish State do even this? I ask because I don't
know the range of those Russian jamming devices. Hezbollah has every opportunity to set an ambush for incoming aircraft attacks.
The F-35 may be low visibility in terms of radar, but it represents an enormous infra-red beacon. There are anti-air missiles
in existence which are optimized for IR.
The final wild card is the Trumpster. He has been mighty erratic of late, and while he might do something wild and crazy, could
the Jewish State rely on whatever-it-is he might do helping them? Could be just the opposite.
@ Grieved with the internet interaction insight and wisdom....thanks and hope many read and understand your words.
@ Zachary Smith with the comment and question about Trump.
I see Trump as clearly representative of the global elite that are having to kill their current empire host without being certain
of how they can live with or make China's socialism with a Chinese face be controlled by an ongoing world of global private finance.
Trump is their public face deal maker and I will agree with Peter AU 1 that Kissinger is the global elite's behind the scenes
deal maker. I have written here before that Trump will default on US debt before he is out of office, IMO.
Can the global elite pressure the world's nations into their continued existence as the jackboot of global finance? Despite
the wild and crazy of grifter Donald Trump I still believe that reason is about to triumph over faith in the hallowed halls of
global finance......and Israel is the proxy front for that lost faith in monotheistic religions with better than others value,
bias and use of victimization.
For me the only question is how long will the transition take and how ugly will it be?
If this is Trump policy, then Trump is 100% pure neocon. It took just three months for the Deep state to turn him.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse. ..."
With the newly reimposed US sanctions against
Iran having little to no perceivable economic impact, national security adviser John Bolton
is talking up his plans to continue to escalate the sanctions track, saying he will "
squeeze
Iran until the pips squeak ."
Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying
that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined
to see it keep getting worse.
Bolton went on to predict that the European efforts to keep trading with Iran would
ultimately fail. He said the
Europeans are going through the six stages of grief , and would ultimately led to
European acceptance of the US demands.
Either way, Bolton's position is that the US strategy will continue to be
imposing new sanctions
on Iran going forward. It's not clear what the end game is, beyond just damaging
Iran.
That's too simplistic, as Russia is now a neoliberal country that experiences consequences of the global crisis of neoliberalism,
but still have some interesting thoughts
And in no way whites have won: "whites" were fragmented movement with no clear agenda other then fighting against bolsheviks; while
communist are now discredited, it was the crisis of monarchy and mistakes of Russian imperial leadership (and entering the war was a
grave mistake) the brought the county to the catastrophe it experienced.
The Russian civil war is finally over -- and the Whites have won.
On November 11, the world will acknowledge the 100 th anniversary of the armistice that ended the carnage that was
the First World War. That date, however, doesn't resonate in Russia. A far more significant moment on the calendar that just passed
-- the anniversary of the Bolshevik seizure of power -- was similarly marginalized last year when the centennial of the October Revolution
was largely ignored by the Russian government and Russian society as a whole. Current Russia sees little to celebrate or reminisce
about the events of a century ago. After all, by the time the guns fell silent on the Western front, a Russia gripped in the frenzy
of the revolution had already been knocked out of the war, losing more than one-third of the territory of the former Russian Empire
in the process. What was left of the country was plunged into a bloody, destructive civil war that would not end for three more years.
What followed was a series of famines, purges and the immense human costs wrought by rapid industrialization and the Second World
War.
This does not mean that the current Russian political and strategic establishment ignores the lessons of World War I and the Revolution
-- but it sees in those events a cautionary tale of what the Russian leadership at the beginning of this century must do to avoid
repeating those disasters. The Kremlin today is well aware of the dangers of ignoring how and why Russia so catastrophically failed
the last time. In 2018, as in 1918, the leadership remains concerns with the possibility of Russian state collapse brought about
either by internal factors or through the machinations of external enemies.
Russia had entered World War I still recovering from the damage done by the Russo-Japanese war and the subsequent "Revolution
of 1905" that the economic and military reforms which had begun in 1906 were designed to ameliorate. Nevertheless, Russia's industrial
base and infrastructure were insufficient to bear the weight of a sustained global conflict. Prior to his assassination in 1911,
Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin repeatedly urged a policy of restraint -- to give Russia the time it needed to implement reforms so
that, at some point in the future, "Russia could speak as in the past" -- from a position of strength. A number of key figures --
from the former Prime Minister Sergei Witte to the faith healer Rasputin, confidant of the imperial family -- urged Emperor Nicholas
II not to go to war and that the conflict would bring disaster down upon Russia. Their fears were validated. Ironically, Nicholas
himself had acknowledged, in 1911, that Russia was unprepared for war and needed a sustained period of peace in order to get its
affairs in order -- but felt he had no choice but to meet the challenge posed by the Central Powers to Russia's Balkan ally Serbia.
History has vindicated the Witte/Rasputin position that war would strain the Russian state to its breaking point. It is those
lessons which today guide the strategic rationale of the Kremlin.
First is the need, as Nicholas himself had raised in a conversation with officials, that "everything that might lead to war must
be avoided" in order, as was the case a century ago, to give time for the completion of military reforms and the construction of
new infrastructure. For the Kremlin today, an additional challenge is managing the inevitable succession crisis that will come when
Vladimir Putin retires or becomes incapacitated.
It seems that Mr. Gvozdev still believes in "the end of the history." I have to disappoint him: the history is not over, the
victory of the "whites" is not final.
I will briefly present non-antiCommunist view on the events of WW1, Revolutions of 1917 and Civil War in Russia.
1. Russia's economic problems and relative unpreparedness for the war were not due to Russo-Japanese War, 1905 Revolution,
or Bolshevik subversion. The problem was in slow rate of transition from feudalism to capitalism which became obvious even during
Crimean War of 1853-56.
2. The rapid industrialization after 1905 was absolutely inadequate and proved to be so in 1914.
3. By contrast, Communist economy have done a much better job at preparing for WW2. Even when moved to Urals and Siberia, Soviet
industry was able to outproduce and outmanufacture Third Reich by large margin. And, yes, the bulk of Lend Lease had only come
after Stalingrad and hardly accounted for more than 4-7% of all produce for military effort.
4. What Whites have won? The monarchists, the anarchists, the Russian nationalists, the supporters of 1917 February Revolution?
There was no ideological unity among them, so who presently can claim victory for them? We have simple and pure reactionary Capitalism
that had won in Russia, without the roots in Tsarist Russia.
4. Reds and their allies (esers, menshevicks, etc.) were the same dispersed as Whites. Until in 30's Stalin aligned and cleaned
(yes, repressed) Red flung.
No. There was definite unity of command and ideology among the Reds in comparison to the Whites. Esers were running some governments,
such as in Ufa when under Revolt of the Czechoslovak Legion, or in Yekaterinburg, where Czar's family was killed, but they were
insignificant and never conducted large scale military ops.
Disagree, Russia needs only a few changes and its contribution to a New Brave World of Globalization will grow and glow. Putin
is in position to make that happen as well just like Henry Kissinger has commented on if President Trump and others in World reach
out together along with President Obama wanted to do as well.
1. American Constitution With Citizen Due Process Rights (It has It But Needs Citizen Enforcement)
2. Three Branches Separation of Powers
3. Checks And Balances Among The 3 Branches
4. Independent Judiciary
5. Multiple Or Political Two Party System
6. Military Under Civilian Command
7. Russo-American-China-India Economic Sister Cities
Russia needs help to develop and share its Natural Resources since covering an expanse of over 17,098,242 area million square
miles, making Russia the Earth's largest country by landmass. Even Runner-Up Canada area square miles of 9,984,670, followed by
America's 9,826,675 and China's 9,596,960. Russia contributions, education, and science is exceptional and the world cannot ignore
Russia and needs it to develop a better planet for the future. Russian Arts, Literature, Sports, Music and Culture are world renown
as well. Often thought of Russian Culture having a mixture of Sparta and Athens and the Russian Cossack's of free men adventurers
much like the American Cowboys.
Just as America had to evolve Russia went through two changeable events in its History. When known as "The Time of Troubles"
was a period of Russian History comprising the years of "Interregnum" a period when normal government is suspended, especially
between successive reigns or regimes between the death of the last Russian Tsar of the Rurik Dynasty in 1598, and the establishment
of the Romanov Dynasty in 1613. As well as, the break up of the USSR from 1989 to 1991, largely due to the great number of radical
reforms that Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev had implemented during his six years as the leader of the USSR and were slow to
bear fruit and did more to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union than to help it. Along with the Soviet Union's oil and gas
revenue dropped dramatically, the USSR began to lose its hold on Eastern Europe. The Russian Communists System was totally dependent
on Oil and Gas revenues back then, but can now thrive even further under Globalization. The same thing that is happening to Iran
now and Persia will be better off after the Ayatollahs are long gone from ruling them as well.
"After the fall of the USSR, Vladmir Putin has tried to return Russia to some previous state of glory (i.e. hostile to the
West). Apparently, the Russian view of a great Russia is being anti-western, aggressive, and corrupt." - obviously, the bullshit,
you are writing here, just a verbatim copy, intrusively distributed by the Anglo-Saxon media. It's not your thoughts, THEY put'em
in your head and now you think they're yours. I do not idealize Russia or Putin, our state have bad experience last 70 years and
have got very toxic legacy of 90th with mass corruption, mafia murders and chechen terrorists, against the logic we are still
alive, and we are doing our best to improve our society and our life. Come in to Russia, dear Airbrush, you won't hear the bullshit
about "state of glory", "restoring the imperia", "pan-Slavic world" and thousands others media cliches. Just come to Russia and
make your own view, then, we will able to discuss like an equal. Before this - our discuss is nonsense.
Yay,'tried to help' buy means of sending occupying force to Odessa and Murmansk. Thanks but no thanks. And as much as you vilify
USSR for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, don't forget that treaty of Munich was signed first. History was never black and white.
Same as Russia's pro- and -anti West division was never clearly drawn with bolsheviks - the 'reds'- on one side and the 'whites'
on the other. Russia is way too complex to try and define her in simplistic terms. First and foremost Russia always was and is
now self-sufficient, and has her own national interest. Every policy is always negotiable given the right insentive.
God, save us from US "aid"! In 1990's we got US "aid", the contry was broken to catastrophic poverty, hunger and degradation,
overflown by crime, corruption and destruction. Then we stopped the "aid" and now we are successful country.
Look at current Ukraine! Now they eat US "aid" with full spoon. The result is the same - destruction, corruption, poverty, decay.
In 1918 you mean US's intervention to Russian North, saying about the "aid"? Then Hitler (the West) also tried to "aid" us?
P.S. Russian view of Great Russia is not being "anti-West". Our view of Great Russia is being self-sufficient, not West's colony,
as you dream.
P.P.S. Hitler is West, don't hang your crimes on us! Churchill aligned with Hitler as well as all Europe. USSR and Stalin saved
Europe from Hitler. It's our flag was raised above Reichstag in 1945, not yours!
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...
"... Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left. ..."
"... Every single person who has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil. ..."
"... Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth. ..."
"... Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check. ..."
The US will be celebrating Veterans Day, and many a striped flag shall be waved. The social
currency of esteem will be used to elevate those who have served in the US military, thereby
ensuring future generations of recruits to be thrown into the gears of the globe-spanning war
machine
Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their
country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its
shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left.
Every single person who
has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other
than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been
fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for
imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil.
I just said something you're not supposed to say. People have dedicated many years of their
lives to the service of the US military; they've given their limbs to it, they've suffered
horrific brain damage for it, they've given their very lives to it. Families have been ripped
apart by the violence that has been inflicted upon members of the US Armed Forces; you're not
supposed to let them hear you say that their loved one was destroyed because some sociopathic
nerds somewhere in Washington decided that it would give America an advantage over potential
economic rivals to control a particular stretch of Middle Eastern dirt. But it is true, and if
we don't start acknowledging that truth lives are going to keep getting thrown into the gears
of the machine for the power and profit of a few depraved oligarchs. So I'm going to keep
saying it.
Last week I saw the hashtag #SaluteToService trending on Twitter. Apparently the NFL had a
deal going where every time someone tweeted that hashtag they'd throw a few bucks at some
veteran's charity. Which sounds sweet, until you consider three things:
2. The NFL has taken millions of
dollars from the Pentagon for displays of patriotism on the field, including for the
policy of bringing all players out for the national anthem every game starting in 2009 (which
led to Colin Kaepernick's demonstrations and the obscene backlash against him).
3. VETERANS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON FUCKING CHARITY.
Seriously, how is "charity for veterans" a thing, and how are people not extremely weirded
out by it? How is it that you can go out and get your limbs blown off for slave wages after
watching your friends die and innocent civilians perish, come home, and have to rely on charity
to get by? How is it that you can risk life and limb killing and suffering irreparable
psychological trauma for some plutocrat's agendas, plunge into poverty when you come home, and
then see the same plutocrat labeled a "philanthropist" because he threw a few tax-deductible
dollars at a charity that gave you a decent prosthetic leg?
Taking care of veterans should be factored into the budget of every act of military
aggression . If a government can't make sure its veterans are housed, healthy and happy in a
dignified way for the rest of their lives, it has no business marching human beings into harm's
way. The fact that you see veterans on the street of any large US city and people who fought in
wars having to beg "charities" for a quality mechanical wheelchair shows you just how much of a
pathetic joke this Veterans Day song and dance has always been.
They'll send you to mainline violence and trauma into your mind and body for the power and
profit of the oligarchic rulers of the US-centralized empire, but it's okay because everyone
gets a long weekend where they're told to thank you for your service. Bullshit.
Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct
designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It
glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be
recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't
wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to
unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make sure
no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of evil,
stupid, meaningless violence. The way to do that is to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it
clear that you do not consent to the global terrorism being perpetrated in your name. These
bastards work so hard conducting propaganda to manufacture your consent for endless
warmongering because they need that consent . So don't give it to them.
Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the
Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly
waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to
shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy
coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable
warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check.
This Veterans Day, don't honor those who have served by giving reverence and legitimacy to a
war machine which is exclusively used for inflicting great evil. Honor them by disassembling
that machine.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
Sort of like how Bolton and his merry band of neocons seized upon Ahmad Chalabi and his merry
men as some sort of Authentic Voice of Resistance to teh Evil Saddam. Does anyone else
remember that?
Bolton et al. know better. As long as this gets them the regime change that they and their
owners in Jerusalem and Riyadh demand, they do not care.
You can always tell just how deep our understanding is of a country by the opposition we
choose to support.
As @Sid Finster pointed out, the fraudulent Chalabi was a good bellwether of our true
understanding of Iraq, and the MEK shows just how equally deep we understand Iran.
Can't say if Bolton is just a nut; but Giuliani, et. al are probably just being paid; like
any other prostitute. IF the $$ stop; they will then say "who knew?" .
AS with Trump; S.A. would have no problem paying enough for them to perform any act demanded.
So Obama sees a "Responsibility to Protect" MEK war criminals and the business interests of
Dean, Bolton, Guiliani et.al, but is perfectly happy to let the Saudis "cross the blood red
line" for years to save himself some headaches on JCOPA – an "agreement" that was not
worth the paper it was written on without Congress actually binding itself by ratification.
But his minions did consider designating the Houthi "terrorists".
The intended Clinton-Obama "transition" had all the marks of a protection racket, all
governance transient and passing and resting on the edifice of unconstitutionally expansive
claims of executive power.
@rayray, thank you for the kind words, but my position is more accurately stated as follows:
I suspect that in 2003, Bolton knew and knew full well that Chalabi was an opportunist at
best. A fraudster, a monster, a sociopath, delusional, to put it more bluntly. That his
support in Iraq was nil, and that Chalabi would be rejected immediately and rightfully, as an
American puppet. Bolton may even have known that Chalabi was in the pay of Iran.
Like the MEK now, as long Bolton gets the war he so craves, he doesn't care about any of
that.
"... Yet the media and government watchdog organizations have largely ignored the potential conflict of interest inherent in dual citizenship. Why the neglect of this issue? Shouldn't members of Congress (and federal judges and executive branch officials) at least be required to disclose their citizenship in another country? ..."
"... Even if our legal system continues to allow dual citizens to serve in high positions of the U.S. government, it should require them to recuse themselves from participating in decisions or policy debates that relate to their second country. ..."
The Biblical injunction that "No one can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24) doesn't apply to
nations. Almost half of the world's countries, including the U.S., recognize dual citizenship--
even when they don't encourage it for the complicated legal issues it often raises.
For example, one who obeys a requirement to give allegiance to a country or votes in a
foreign election may be regarded as having renounced citizenship in the other country. What
happens when the legal claims of one country conflict with those of the second country? Which
of the two countries has an obligation to assist a dual national in distress?
Until the Supreme Court decided otherwise in the 1967 case of Afroyim v. Rusk , a
U.S. citizen who voted in a political election in a foreign state would forfeit his or her U.S.
citizenship. From that point on, dual citizens have maintained their right to vote and hold
public office without penalty.
Anyone can become a dual citizen, even members of Congress, high court judges and top
officials of the executive branch. There's no law or regulation against it. Nor are they
required to disclose such dual citizenship.
So what's the problem?
For most dual citizens, having the benefits of citizenship in two countries (including
expedited immigration) outweigh the costs (which may include tax obligations to both
countries).
Yet dual citizenship in the United States poses a hitherto unappreciated issue for
policy-level members of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The divided national
loyalties of dual citizens can create real or apparent conflicts of interest when such
legislators, judges or senior officials make or speak out on policies that relate to their
second country.
The potential damage to our democracy is the greater when such potential conflicts of
interest are concealed in undisclosed dual citizenship.
Current entries on the Internet contain a number of undocumented assertions as to which
members of Congress and senior officers are dual citizens. Without reliable data, however,
Americans can only speculate on which senators and representatives may have divided national
loyalties.
The lack of transparency regarding citizenship erodes trust in government, raising
credibility doubts where there should be none, and allowing some apparent conflicts of interest
to continue undetected.
When a senator, representative or senior U.S. official speaks out, submits bills or
determines policy on an issue of importance to a foreign country of which that member or
official (or judge) has the tie of citizenship, their constituents and the U.S. public at large
should at least be able to assess whether such views or actions are influenced by the divided
loyalty.
Since they don't involve national loyalty, religion and ethnicity seldom raise conflict
issues. Moreover, they are generally matters of public record.
By contrast, dual citizenship creates conflict of interest through divided loyalties. Thus
it would seem reasonable to require that dual citizen members of Congress, the judiciary and
the executive be required to renounce citizenship in another country as a condition of public
service.
Both Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-Texas) and former Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn.) recently received wide press coverage when
they renounced their Canadian and Swiss nationalities, respectively.
Yet the media and government watchdog organizations have largely ignored the potential
conflict of interest inherent in dual citizenship. Why the neglect of this issue? Shouldn't
members of Congress (and federal judges and executive branch officials) at least be required to
disclose their citizenship in another country?
Even if our legal system continues to allow dual citizens to serve in high positions of
the U.S. government, it should require them to recuse themselves from participating in
decisions or policy debates that relate to their second country.
"... If an American citizen applies for foreign citizenship voluntarily, they "may lose U.S. nationality," if there is evidence, through their statements or conduct, that they intend to give up their U.S. citizenship. ..."
Applying for citizenship under the Law of Return "is a formal procedure which you could
expect normally to take a number of months except under emergency conditions," said Yoram
Hazony, president of the the Herzl Institute, a Jerusalem think tank. "There is no such thing
as receiving Israeli citizenship without submitting a formal request to the Israeli
government."
... ... ...
It's also worth noting that the
U.S. government doesn't look especially kindly on dual citizenship. The United States
"recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy
because of the problems it may cause," according to the Department of State.
If an American citizen applies for foreign citizenship voluntarily, they "may lose U.S.
nationality," if there is evidence, through their statements or conduct, that they intend to
give up their U.S. citizenship.
... ... ...
Sanders' case
So has Sanders ever taken action to claim the Israeli citizenship the would qualify for? He
told Rehm no, and we have no evidence that would call that into question. While Sanders is
Jewish by birth and
spent some time on an Israeli kibbutz, or community farm, in the early 1960s, he would not
have become a citizen without a concerted effort to become one.
We did not hear back from Sanders' office, but a spokesman, Michael Briggs, told
Politico that "Diane Rehm is an excellent radio host. There's a great big Internet out
there with lots of good and bad information. I've never heard the question come up before."
Hazony, an Israeli who studied at Princeton and Rutgers and who has written widely about
both American and Israeli politics, said he's not aware of any American lawmakers with Israeli
citizenship. "In fact, it is common for Jews who are dual U.S.-Israel citizens to renounce one
or the other before serving in official government capacities," he said.
In 1967, the court ruled that the
State Department
had violated the Constitution when it refused to issue a new
U.S. passport to a U.S. citizen who had voted in an election in Israel. The decision overturned a law saying that "a person, who
is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voting in a political
election in a foreign state."
...there is no authoritative tally of how many U.S. citizens possess another nationality. Michael A. Olivas, an immigration
professor at the University of Houston Law Center, believes that the number is well over 1 million and could be several times
that number.
... ... ...
But the concept of dual citizenship is problematic both symbolically and practically, and could become divisive if more
immigrants decide to avail themselves of the privileges of U.S. citizens -- as we believe they ought to do. U.S citizens with
strong ties to their ancestral countries have been accused of divided loyalties in the past even when they didn't possess
citizenship in those countries -- witness the internment of 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans during World War II. But when
a U.S. citizen is also a citizen of another country, the accusation is even easier to make.
... ... ...
But it's also true that dual citizenship undermines the common bond that unites U.S. citizens regardless of their ethnicity,
religion or place of birth. Dual citizenship places a sort of asterisk next to the names of some U.S. citizens but not others.
... ... ...
Nations vary in their attitudes toward dual citizenship. Some reject the concept outright; others allow their citizens to take
out a second citizenship only in selected countries and some have drawn a distinction between citizenship and nationality.
Yet there's no question that dual citizenship poses practical problems both for those who possess it and for the government.
The U.S. State Department discourages U.S. citizens from retaining or applying for citizenship in another country because "dual
nationality may limit U.S. government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally
has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance." The department also warns that "dual citizenship can present a security issue
whether to permit access to classified information which affects recruitment, employment and assignments." In some cases, dual
citizenship could disqualify an applicant for a sensitive position with the CIA or the State Department.
The complexities and complications raised by dual citizenship are not enough to justify amending the Constitution to overrule
the Supreme Court. But we agree with the State Department that U.S. citizens should think twice about professing allegiance to
another country. Moreover, by reinforcing the doubts that some hold about the loyalty of immigrants -- some U.S. citizens, for
instance, fume when Mexican Americans display the Mexican flag at Cinco de Mayo rallies -- the persistence of dual citizenship may
make it politically more difficult to secure a path to citizenship for immigrants who came here illegally.
"... For his first two years in office, he sunk nearly all his political capital into enacting huge tax cuts for the rich, wholesale Wall Street deregulation, large increases in military spending, and an extremely pro-Israel foreign policy -- exactly the sort of policies near-and-dear to the establishment conservative candidates whom he had crushed in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, his jilted grassroots supporters have had to settle for some radical rhetoric and a regular barrage of outrageous Tweets rather than anything more substantive. ..."
"... With Republicans in full control of Congress, finding excuses for this widespread betrayal was quite difficult, but now that the Democrats have taken the House, Trump's apologists can more easily shift the blame over to them. ..."
"... Both Trump's supporters and his opponents claim that his presidency represents a drastic break from Republican business-as-usual, and surely that was the hope of many of the Americans who voted for him in 2016, but the actual reality often seems rather different. ..."
"... Although the net election results were not particularly bad for the Republicans, the implications of several state races seem extremely worrisome. The highest profile senate race was in Texas, and Trump may have narrowly dodged a bullet. ..."
Perhaps the loss of the House may actually prove to be a mixed blessing for Trump. Democrats
will achieve control of all the investigative committees and their accusations and subpoenas
will make Trump's life even more miserable than it was before, while surely removing any chance
that significant elements of Trump's remaining agenda will ever be enacted.
However, although Trump had reached the presidency by advocating a radical
populist-nationalist agenda, he has hardly governed in those terms. For his first two years in
office, he sunk nearly all his political capital into enacting huge tax cuts for the rich,
wholesale Wall Street deregulation, large increases in military spending, and an extremely
pro-Israel foreign policy -- exactly the sort of policies near-and-dear to the establishment
conservative candidates whom he had crushed in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, his jilted
grassroots supporters have had to settle for some radical rhetoric and a regular barrage of
outrageous Tweets rather than anything more substantive.
With Republicans in full control of
Congress, finding excuses for this widespread betrayal was quite difficult, but now that the
Democrats have taken the House, Trump's apologists can more easily shift the blame over to
them.
Meanwhile, a considerably stronger Republican Senate will certainly ease the way for Trump's
future court nominees, especially if another Supreme Court vacancy occurs, and there will be
little chance of any difficult Kavanaugh battles. However, here once again, Trump's supposed
radicalism has merely been rhetorical. Kavanaugh and nearly all of his other nominees have been
very mainstream Republican choices, carefully vetted by the Federalist Society and other
conservative establishment groups, and they would probably have been near the top of the list
if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio were sitting in the Oval Office.
Both Trump's supporters and his opponents claim that his presidency represents a drastic
break from Republican business-as-usual, and surely that was the hope of many of the Americans
who voted for him in 2016, but the actual reality often seems rather different.
Although the net election results were not particularly bad for the Republicans, the
implications of several state races seem extremely worrisome. The highest profile senate race
was in Texas, and Trump may have narrowly dodged a bullet. Among our largest states, Texas
ranks as by far the most solidly Republican, and therefore it serves as the central lynchpin of
every Republican presidential campaign. The GOP has won every major statewide race for more
than twenty years, but despite such seemingly huge advantages, incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz faced a
very difficult reelection race against a young border-area Congressman named Beto O'Rourke, who
drew enormous enthusiasm and an ocean of local and national funding.
>>Johnstone: The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them<<
Preach!
The military defends Money Power Monopolist Mega-Corporate Fascist Global Empire, not
America, and definitely NOT the Constitution. The New Deal effectively wiped out the
Constitution, which was the "Old Deal."
Syria and Iran aren't threats, they are countries that don't have debt-based money systems
controlled by the Money Power Monopolists.
"In a sense, there is no "future". Currently, you note a consolidation of the few
remaining countries without a "central bank" ...and how rapidly this is occurring. Look for
Syria next to fall, and fall quickly.
North Korea has already cut a deal under the aegis of China...feit accompli. Cuba has also
agreed to the North American integration once Fidel "passes".
That leaves IRAN. And biblical prophesy. The fallout from that conflict sets the stage for
the true new world order as has been broadcast in the media for the last 13 years or so."
~Unnamed Rothschild
The establishment of central banks is ALWAYS a necessary first step of subjugation of
geographically congregated bloodlines. Note that Libya's first official act, before even the
corpses turned stiff...was the establishment of a central bank. Those rebel forces were
certainly well schooled by someone!
~Unnamed Rothschild
Amazing how Libyan rebels took time out of their daily war duties to establish a CENTRAL
BANK! Imagine the paperwork in getting that done on the battlefield!
Those rebels are a well educated lot!
Laughing out Loud!
Seriously, don't the serfs notice things like this?
~Unnamed Rothschild
The financier of the military makes it clear they are attacking Western countries -
monetarily and economically.
"Remember, the equity and bond markets exist only to remove fiat from circulation!"
~Unnamed Rothschild
Our soldiers joined, were trained, given orders. The best way to honor veterans is to quit
putting it on them. This is the government we have because it is the government we
want. It's the government we allow. This is on all of us . I think it's time for
people who are dissatisfied with the treatment of veterans, with the voter fraud, with the
lies and theft of elected officials, local, state, and federal, tired of the media lying to
us and creating fake events... perhaps it's time to peacefully strike. Perhaps it's time to
say No to vote fraud, to say No to lies and deceit.
Perhaps it's time to peacefully petition the government for redress of grievances. That's
a Constitutional Right guaranteed to Citizens of the United States. That requires an active,
constructive peaceful assembly. Everyone has had it up to the eyes with this ******** and
this con-game we're being fed.
I'd rather get stomped to death than live on with this never ending slow coup against We
The People. We hold the power. Just us. We designate that power. It should be here to protect
us. That social contract deserves respect. You may be watching the only chance in your life
that you could do anything about it, given the current President and his attitude. I really
think that. It's not enough to watch the Proud Boys punch an Antifa in the jaw. That doesn't
do it for me. That's theatre.
My girlfriends father is old army security. I'm paying the bill at Dennys and he says, let
me put my military discount on that. So he's behind a guy in an Operation Iraqi Freedom
jacket. He says, hey; I like your jacket. The guy looks at him and he says, nice hat. Army
Security Agency. The military deserves more than a discount at ******* Denny's. They deserve
a country. So do I. So do you. But there's not going to be any country if we don't peacefully
come together to hang every last traitor scumbag lying trasonous seditious bastard by just
saying NO! Arrest these traitors! I don't want my vote raped. I don't want my speach raped.
Or yours! I don't give a **** about illegals or their kids because I take care of my kids
legally and lawfully and didn't put them in that **** expecting a parent of the century
award.
I don't ******* care what you call yourself. But if it's more important than your right to
call yourself whatever you want, you are my enemy and I tell you no.
If it's legal to vote and legal to be off work to vote, to peacefully assemble, it should
be legal to redress government. It's time to show out. It's time to say we want this ********
to stop. We have paid very well for the lifestyles and presidential libraries and foundations
and kept all the traitors in good health. But we reserve the right to cut you off if you
abuse our sacrifice to you and our votes to you. We reserve the right without prejudice to
say NO. That's our right. And until we say NO! our silence equals consent.
I say NO. I say **** THE SEDITIOUS TRAITORS trying to hold on to rape us of all our
Rights. And I say long live Trump for giving our country back to us at inauguration. That's
what's up. Let's peacefully **** these people up. USE IT OR LOSE IT.
And from a movie that says the futility of it all: "We fight because we are here." Imagine
dying in the trenches of WWI or in a shithole like the trenches of Korea.
The least we could do is to learn what really happened and why. I realize I was taught an
endless string of lies about history, especially US History, WWI, WWII, Vietnam war.
Be very careful and informed before joining the military.
Libtards don't really know much about anything, so it seems. Here's the deal:
As long as there are assholes in the world, there will be wars.
I don't have a problem with that. It's the world that I live in. It's been the case
throughout all of human history. A world without wars is pure ******* fantasy. It will never
happen. It's high time that libtards start accepting the world that they live in.
The problem that we're having , is that we're shooting the wrong assholes instead
of the right ones. But you know what? All of human history shows that problems like that are
always remedied as well. And if you're doing some soul-searching, trying to figure out who
the assholes are, they're probably going to be any group of people, who can't leave other
groups of people the hell alone .
Not surprisingly, the 20th century seems to be characterized by assholes fighting each
other.
Our psychopathic dna as a nation comes mainly from england, one of the most, if not the
most murdering countries in history. england cruelly colonized Asia and Africa, and literally
never stopped murdering the innocents. Now as our ALLY, among the other killing nations, such
as France and Germany, we the USA can kill literally any country or countries for any reason
or no reason.
we as the american people will be blamed for all the monstrous destruction and
innocents deaths. separation of our country and our politicians would be necessary if we are
to have a future. looking dim. why are we still dirty, and killing innocents, why are we
allowing saudi and israel to mass murder innocent women and children ?
no one cares enough
yet. you would think by 2018 we all would have banned war and conflict, we have not. this
makes me sick. I am a vet.
I'm actually thinking of not watching football anymore the war propaganda is constant. I
went to a game and it was like walking into an armed camp. Hundreds of cops and military.
Every five minutes they're marching around and everyone has to "honor" them. It's disgusting.
All the players are told to kiss every soldiers ***. The Army are the terrorists. They all
make me want to puke.
In Australia at the moment the suicide rate is a shocker among those coming back from
Afghanistan, Iraq and places unknown, the solution they are proposing is for priority airport
treatment and more medals and other stuff along the model the US has, which is an insult as it
does nothing to financially support or mentally cure, its a cop out.
Very few wars are even about righting some amazing wrong. They merely tend to be about
treasure i.e. nat gas, oil, rare earth materials, diamonds, water, blah blah blah. And, if
there happens to be some fight, ala WWII, then you can bet your *** on it that all corporate
assholes are funding and benefiting from the war....on both sides of the coin i.e. backing
each side until a peace is called.
I don't have an answer to the human condition or our propensity to be violent and fight
etc., but I sure as **** am not cool with sacking places, and killing kids, over *******
things. We're better than this.
I have 2 kids myself. You can all be on notice that if a bomb were to be dropped on my
house, and if my kids were killed, I would likely devolve and start picking off the low
hanging fruit i.e. the zombies shuffling in and out of said bomb makers companies, and
wasting them 1 person as a time. I'd slowly, if still able, work my way up to the execs.
Hopefully, and along the way, I'd be able to wipe shareholders off of the grid, also.
When you go off to fight for "freedom", and arrive home to find that you have little to no
real freedom and essentially live in a police state, it's a shocking blow.
This sounds like something I would write. And even the damn CHURCHES honor the veteran
"serving" his country. What a crock of ****. I tell the pastor that he will be judged harshly
when his time comes. And I tell Christians that because they support the rampant murder of
millions that when they die and are standing before Jesus for judgement they will be soaked
in the blood of the innocent and he will ask you why did you support this? Why did you not
speak out against it? Then I look at them and say "good luck because you're gonna need
it".
The world is not ruled by pure evil yet. In Brazil A nationalist was elected, in Italy and
much of eastern Europe other nationalists were elected. You think the Chinese protected the
Italian and Brazilian right to free and fair elections? You think Russia is the arsenal of
freedom? You think the EU upheld the votes of the people, allowing Britain to vote on leaving
the EU and Italy and eastern Europe? You think the unelected rulers of the EU respected other
peoples right to vote? Look out onto the world, and recognize that as of today, the nations
of the world have A group to join if they chose to fight for liberty, capitalism and all the
other virtues, and that group is grounded and guaranteed by the United States of America. In
G-d I trust.
Hopeful thinking for a hopeless reality. Truth is tyrants never fall by their own swords.
It always takes someone else's. The modern problem is a bit more complex when we make the
tyrants that we later topple. The toppling is where the bucks are... just ask any of the the
last 4 Presidents and their respective Congresses.
So war is just an American problem, something we just invented? Do we read much history or is it all PBS specials now. War has ALWAYS been fucked up. Violence has been a major contributor to immigration for
all of history. Like it or not, we live in dangerous times. We can ASSUME that if America shrank it's
military and ended all interventions that world peace would magically appear....but it won't.
We can pray that while we retreat behind of big screen TVs that China will end their
territorial expansion and military programs, but they WON'T.
I'm all for reigning in our interventions, but let's not pretend that America is to blame
for human evil and aggressive behaviors....just because we are good at it..
There is an endless stream of history illustrating the absolute brutality and evil that
had persisted since the beginning of time. We should avoid embracing it but we should avoid
thinking we have the power to end it. More arrogance to be used for destructive purposes.
Nah, it is just that USA has made forever war such a profitable and ongoing
mega-business. The degenerate banker and royal families of Europe would only fight every generation or
two. You fight all the time and try to start new ones, before you finish off with the old ones,
and print global toilet paper to pay for it all. Because it is good business. **** laws,
lives and human decency.
And then you have Hollywood make ****-for-brain movies about just wars, war comradery and
heroic sacrifice and spread that **** all over the world.
So yeah, you got all the reasons for being hated for your war business.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make
sure no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of
evil, stupid, meaningless violence
A bit too close to the Bone for the average American to appreciate. A well thought out & articulated article.
The machine is not the problem. It's like a gun. Guns are just mechanical devices and
can't kill until people aim them and pull the trigger. It's people that kill by forcing the
machine to do their terrible evil bidding.
It's the business and political leaders that build, guide and enable the machine and
facilitate the infrastructure and culture to wage war.
Democrats love War as we saw with LBJ, Bill Clinton (bombing the hell out of and
destroying Yugoslavia), Obama and Hillary Clinton. Democrat McNamara was one of their finest! McNamara's Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War
It's both Republicans and Democrats - George Bush I's Desert Storm, Panama; George Bush II
invading Iraq, Afghanistan; Reagan invading GRENADA!, Nixon in Vietnam, assassinating
Salvador Allende in Chile, bombing Laos and Cambodia; Eisenhower started in Vietnam,
installed a dictator in Guatemala in 1954, installed Batista in Cuba, Kennedy was going to
withdraw from Vietnam and part of the reason he was assassinated; and on and on and on.
Perhaps the loss of the House may actually prove to be a mixed blessing for Trump. Democrats
will achieve control of all the investigative committees and their accusations and subpoenas
will make Trump's life even more miserable than it was before, while surely removing any chance
that significant elements of Trump's remaining agenda will ever be enacted.
However, although Trump had reached the presidency by advocating a radical
populist-nationalist agenda, he has hardly governed in those terms. For his first two years in
office, he sunk nearly all his political capital into enacting huge tax cuts for the rich,
wholesale Wall Street deregulation, large increases in military spending, and an extremely
pro-Israel foreign policy -- exactly the sort of policies near-and-dear to the establishment
conservative candidates whom he had crushed in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, his jilted
grassroots supporters have had to settle for some radical rhetoric and a regular barrage of
outrageous Tweets rather than anything more substantive. With Republicans in full control of
Congress, finding excuses for this widespread betrayal was quite difficult, but now that the
Democrats have taken the House, Trump's apologists can more easily shift the blame over to
them.
Meanwhile, a considerably stronger Republican Senate will certainly ease the way for Trump's
future court nominees, especially if another Supreme Court vacancy occurs, and there will be
little chance of any difficult Kavanaugh battles. However, here once again, Trump's supposed
radicalism has merely been rhetorical. Kavanaugh and nearly all of his other nominees have been
very mainstream Republican choices, carefully vetted by the Federalist Society and other
conservative establishment groups, and they would probably have been near the top of the list
if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio were sitting in the Oval Office.
Both Trump's supporters and his opponents claim that his presidency represents a drastic
break from Republican business-as-usual, and surely that was the hope of many of the Americans
who voted for him in 2016, but the actual reality often seems rather different.
Although the net election results were not particularly bad for the Republicans, the
implications of several state races seem extremely worrisome. The highest profile senate race
was in Texas, and Trump may have narrowly dodged a bullet. Among our largest states, Texas
ranks as by far the most solidly Republican, and therefore it serves as the central lynchpin of
every Republican presidential campaign. The GOP has won every major statewide race for more
than twenty years, but despite such seemingly huge advantages, incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz faced a
very difficult reelection race against a young border-area Congressman named Beto O'Rourke, who
drew enormous enthusiasm and an ocean of local and national funding.
I was actually in Texas just a couple of days before the vote, speaking at a Ron
Paul-related conference in the Houston area, and although most of the libertarian-leaning
attendees thought that Cruz would probably win, they all agreed with the national media that it
would probably be close. Cruz's final victory margin of less than three points confirmed this
verdict.
But if things had gone differently, and O'Rourke had squeaked out a narrow win, our national
politics would have been immediately transformed. Any Republican able to win California has a
near-lock on the White House, and the same is true for any Democrat able to carry Texas,
especially if the latter is a young and attractive Kennedyesque liberal, fluent in Spanish and
probably very popular with the large Latino populations of other important states such as
Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado. I strongly suspect that a freshman Sen. O'Rourke
(R-Texas) would have been offered the 2020 Democratic nomination almost by acclamation, and
barring unexpected personal or national developments, would have been a strong favorite in that
race against Trump or any other Republican. Rep. O'Rourke raised an astonishing $70 million in
nationwide donations, and surely many of his contributors were dreaming of similar
possibilities. A shift of just a point and a half, and in twenty-four months he probably would
have been our next president. But it was not to be.
I personally don't understand the French electorate on these matters. Macron in particular
did not promise anything other than to deliver more of the same policies, albeit with
more youth and more vigor, as a frank globalist. Who, exactly, was excited at his election but
is disappointed now? People with a short attention span or susceptibility to marketing
gimmicks, I assume.
It is hard to talk about the French media without getting a bit conspiratorial, at least, I
speak of "structural conspiracies." Macron's unabashed, "modernizing" globalism certainly
corresponds to the id of the French media-corporate elites and to top 20% of the
electorate, let us say, the talented fifth. He was able to break through the old French
two-party system, annihilating the Socialist Party and sidelining the conservatives. The media
certainly helped in this, preferring him to either the conservative François Fillon or
the civic nationalist Marine Le Pen.
However, the media have to a certain extent turned on Macron, perhaps because he
believes his "complex thoughts" cannot be grasped by
journalists with their admittedly limited cognitive abilities . Turn on the French radio
and you'll hear stories of how the so-called "Youth With Macron," whose twenty- and
thirty-somethings were invited onto all the talk shows just before Macron became a leading
candidate, were actually former Socialist party hacks with no grass roots. Astroturf. I could
have told you that.
Macron has made a number of what the media call "gaffes." When an old lady voiced concern
about the future of her pension,
he answered : "you don't have a right to complain." He has also done many things that
anyone with just a little sense of decorum will be disgusted by. The 40-year-old Macron, who
has a 65-year-old wife and claims not to be a homosexual, loves being photographed with sweaty
black bodies.
... ... ...
So there's that. But, in terms of policies, I cannot say that the people who supported
Macron have any right to complain. He is doing what he promised, that is to say, steaming full
straight ahead on the globalist course with, a bit more forthrightness and, he hopes,
competence than his Socialist or conservative predecessors.
Link
Bookmark In truth there are no solutions. There is nothing he can do to make the elitist and
gridlocked European Union more effective, nothing he can do to improve the "human capital" in
the Afro-Islamic banlieues , and not much he can do to improve the economy which the
French people would find acceptable. A bit more of labor flexibility here, a bit of a tax break
there, oh wait deficit's too big, a tax hike in some other area too, then. Six of one, half a
dozen in the other. Oh, and they've also passed
more censorship legislation to fight "fake news" and "election meddling" and other pathetic
excuses the media-political class across the West have come up with for their loss of control
over the Narrative.
Since the European Central Bank has been printing lending hundreds of billions of euros to
stimulate the Eurozone economy, France's economic performance has been decidedly mediocre, with
low growth, slowly declining unemployment, and no reduction in debt (currently at 98.7% of
GDP). Performance will presumably worsen if the ECB, as planned, phases out stimulus at the end
of this year.
There is a rather weird situation in terms of immigration and diversity. Everyone seems to
be aware of the hellscape of ethno-religious conflict which will thrive in the emerging
Afro-Islamic France of the future. Just recently at the commemoration of the Battle of Verdun,
an elderly French soldier asked Macron : "When will you kick out the illegal immigrants? .
. . Aren't we bringing in a Trojan Horse?"
More significant was the resignation of Gérard Collomb from his position as interior
minister last month to return to his old job as mayor of Lyon, which he apparently finds more
interesting. Collomb is a 71-year-old Socialist politician who has apparently awakened to the
problems of ethnic segregation and conflict. He said in his
farewell address :
I have been in all the neighborhoods, the neighborhoods of Marseille-North to Mirail in
Toulous, to the Parisian periphery, Corbeil, Aulnay, Sevran, the situation has deteriorated
greatly. We cannot continue to work on towns individually, there needs to be an overarching
vision to recreate social mixing. Because today we are living side by side, and I still say,
me, I fear that tomorrow we will live face-to-face [i.e. across a battle lines].
It is not clear how much Collomb tried to act upon these concerns as interior minister and
was frustrated. In any case, he dared to voice the same concerns to
the far-right magazine Valeurs Actuelles last February. He told them: "The relations
between people are very difficult, people don't want to live together" (using the term
vivre-ensemble , a common diversitarian slogan). He said immigration's responsibility
for this was "enormous" and agreed with the journalist that "France no longer needs
immigration." Collomb then virtually predicted civil war:
Communities in France are coming into conflict more and more and it is becoming very
violent . . . I would say that, within five years, the situation could become irreversible.
Yes, we have five or six years to avoid the worst. After that . . .
It's unclear why "the next five or six years" should be so critical. From one point of view,
the old France is already lost as about
a third of births are non-European and in particular
one fifth are Islamic . The patterns of life in much of France will therefore likely come
to reflect those of Africa and the Middle-East, including random violence and religious
fanaticism. Collomb seems to think "social mixing" would prevent this, but in fact, there has
been plenty of social and even genetic "mixing" in Brazil and Mexico, without this preventing
ethno-racial stratification and extreme levels of violence.
I'm afraid it's all more of the same in douce France , sweet France. On the current
path, Macron will be a one-termer like Sarkozy and Hollande were. Then again, the next
elections will be in three-and-a-half years, an eternity in democratic politics. In all
likelihood, this would be the Right's election to win, with a conservative anti-immigration
candidate. A few people of the mainstream Right are open to working with Le Pen's National
Rally and some have even defended the Identitarians. Then again, I could even imagine
Macron posing as a heroic opponent of (illegal . . .) immigration if he thought it could
help get him reelected. Watch this space . . .
How many immigrants from Africa come to Europe depends only on political will of Europeans. The
demography of African has nothing to do with it. Europe has means to stop immigration legal and
illegal. Macron talking about how many children are born in Africa is just another cop out.
A few months ago I claimed that Emmanuel Macron has/holds an ""Alt Right" worldview" due
to him having had interactions with an influential member of the French Protestant Huguenot
minority in France: http://www.unz.com/article/collateral-damage/#comment-1955020
[...] Macron : Germany is different from France. You are more Protestant, which results
in a significant difference. Through the church, through Catholicism, French society was
structured vertically, from top to bottom. I am convinced that it has remained so until
today. That might sound shocking to some – and don't worry, I don't see myself as a
king. But whether you like it or not, France's history is unique in Europe. Not to put too
fine a point on it, France is a country of regicidal monarchists. It is a paradox: The
French want to elect a king, but they would like to be able to overthrow him whenever they
want. The office of president is not a normal office – that is something one should
understand when one occupies it. You have to be prepared to be disparaged, insulted and
mocked – that is in the French nature. And: As president, you cannot have a desire to
be loved. Which is, of course, difficult because everybody wants to be loved. But in the end,
that's not important. What is important is serving the country and moving it forward.
Who, exactly, was excited at his election but is disappointed now? People with a short
attention span or susceptibility to marketing gimmicks, I assume.
My guess is that much of KSA will look a lot like the shabby end of Yemen before too long. This will perhaps strand some assets.
Once the House of Saud fragments further among competing clans/factions (Faisal, Sudairi, Abdullah, Bin Sultans) things will hasten.
Collapse is preceded by intra-elite rivalry over a shrinking pie, so to speak.
Caspian Report has a nice set on KSA if you look for them. Here's one- https://youtu.be/9tHwvZ9XDLU
And another- https://youtu.be/hh8isVX3H9w
Hightrekker once commented something quite apt, along the lines of~ 'And all this is probably like the Austrians in 1913 arguing
about who their next Habsburg Ruler is going to be'.
From what I understand there are 4000 Saudi princes (a suspiciously round number, so likely an approximate). It all should
make for a very bloody affair. Hopefully Iran will do the right thing and kick 'em while they're down.
"... officials and politicians in Britain and France conspired to transform Serbia's murder of Austro-Hungary's Crown Prince into a continent-wide conflict. France burned for revenge for its defeat in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War and loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Britain feared German commercial and naval competition. At the time, the British Empire controlled one quarter of the world's surface. Italy longed to conquer Austria-Hungary's South Tyrol. Turkey feared Russia's desire for the Straits. Austria-Hungary feared Russian expansion. ..."
"... Prof Clark clearly shows how the French and British maneuvered poorly-led Germany into the war. The Germans were petrified of being crushed between two hostile powers, France and Russia. The longer the Germans waited, the more the military odds turned against them. Tragically, Germany was then Europe's leader in social justice. ..."
"... Britain kept stirring the pot, determined to defeat commercial and colonial rival, Germany. The rush to war became a gigantic clockwork that no one could stop. All sides believed a war would be short and decisive. Crowds of fools chanted 'On to Berlin' or 'On to Paris.' ..."
"... The 1904 Russo-Japanese War offered a sharp foretaste of the 1914 conflict, but Europe's grandees paid scant attention. ..."
"... This demented war in Europe tuned into an even greater historic tragedy in 1917 when US President Woodrow Wilson, driven by a lust for power and prestige, entered the totally stalemated war on the Western Front. One million US troops and starvation caused by a crushing British naval blockade turned the tide of battle and led to Germany's surrender. ..."
"... Vengeful France and Britain imposed intolerable punishment on Germany, forcing it to accept full guilt for the war, an untruth that persists to this day. The result was Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists. If an honorable peace had been concluded in 1917, neither Hitler nor Stalin might have seized power and millions of lives would have been saved. This is the true tragedy of the Great War. ..."
"... Let us recall the words of the wise Benjamin Franklin: `No good war, no bad peace.' ..."
We are now upon the 100th anniversary of World War I, the war that was supposed to end all
wars. While honoring the 16 million who died in this conflict, we should also condemn the
memory of the politicians, officials and incompetent generals who created this horrendous blood
bath.
I've walked most of the Western Front of the Great War, visited its battlefields and haunted
forts, and seen the seas of crosses marking its innumerable cemeteries.
As a former soldier and war correspondent, I've always considered WWI as he stupidest, most
tragic and catastrophic of all modern wars.
The continuation of this conflict, World War II, killed more people and brought more
destruction on civilians in firebombed cities but, at least for me, World War I holds a special
horror and poignancy. This war was not only an endless nightmare for the soldiers in their
pestilential trenches, it also violently ended the previous 100 years of glorious European
civilization, one of mankind's most noble achievements.
I've explored the killing fields of Verdun many times and feel a visceral connection to this
ghastly place where up to 1,000,000 soldiers died. I have even spent the night there, listening
to the sirens that wailed without relent, and watching searchlights that pierced the night,
looking for the ghosts of the French and German soldiers who died here.
Verdun's soil was so poisoned by explosives and lethal gas that to this day it produces only
withered, stunted scrub and sick trees. Beneath the surface lie the shattered remains of men
and a deadly harvest of unexploded shells that still kill scores of intruders each year. The
spooky Ossuaire Chapel contains the bone fragments of 130,000 men, blown to bits by the
millions of high explosive shells that deluged Verdun.
The town of the same name is utterly bleak, melancholy and cursed. Young French and German
officers are brought here to see firsthand the horrors of war and the crime of stupid
generalship.
Amid all the usual patriotic cant from politicians, imperialists and churchmen about the
glories of this slaughter, remember that World War I was a contrived conflict that was totally
avoidable. Contrary to the war propaganda that still clouds and corrupts our historical view,
World War I was not started by Imperial Germany.
Professor Christopher Clark in his brilliant book, `The Sleepwalkers' shows how officials
and politicians in Britain and France conspired to transform Serbia's murder of
Austro-Hungary's Crown Prince into a continent-wide conflict. France burned for revenge for its
defeat in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War and loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Britain feared German
commercial and naval competition. At the time, the British Empire controlled one quarter of the
world's surface. Italy longed to conquer Austria-Hungary's South Tyrol. Turkey feared Russia's
desire for the Straits. Austria-Hungary feared Russian expansion.
Prof Clark clearly shows how the French and British maneuvered poorly-led Germany into the
war. The Germans were petrified of being crushed between two hostile powers, France and Russia.
The longer the Germans waited, the more the military odds turned against them. Tragically,
Germany was then Europe's leader in social justice.
Britain kept stirring the pot, determined to defeat commercial and colonial rival, Germany.
The rush to war became a gigantic clockwork that no one could stop. All sides believed a war
would be short and decisive. Crowds of fools chanted 'On to Berlin' or 'On to Paris.'
Few at the time understood the impending horrors of modern war or the geopolitical demons
one would release. The 1904 Russo-Japanese War offered a sharp foretaste of the 1914 conflict,
but Europe's grandees paid scant attention.
Even fewer grasped how the collapse of the antiquated Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires
would send Europe and the Mideast into dangerous turmoil that persists to our day. Or how a
little-known revolutionary named Lenin would shatter Imperial Russia and turn it into the
world's most murderous state.
This demented war in Europe tuned into an even greater historic tragedy in 1917 when US
President Woodrow Wilson, driven by a lust for power and prestige, entered the totally
stalemated war on the Western Front. One million US troops and starvation caused by a crushing
British naval blockade turned the tide of battle and led to Germany's surrender.
Vengeful France and Britain imposed intolerable punishment on Germany, forcing it to accept
full guilt for the war, an untruth that persists to this day. The result was Adolf Hitler and
his National Socialists. If an honorable peace had been concluded in 1917, neither Hitler nor
Stalin might have seized power and millions of lives would have been saved. This is the true
tragedy of the Great War.
Let us recall the words of the wise Benjamin Franklin: `No good war, no bad peace.'
It's interesting that Clapper is against abandoned by Trump Iran deal.
Tramp administration is acting more like Israeli marionette here, because while there a
strategic advantage in crushing the Iranian regime for the USA and making a county another Us
vassal in the middle East, the cost for the country might be way to high (especially if we count
in the cost of additional antagonizing Russia and China). Trump might jump into the second
Afghanistan, which would really brake the back of US military -- crushing Iran military is one
thing, but occupying such a county is a very costly task. And that might well doom Israel in the
long run as settlers policies now created really antagonized, unrecognizable minority with a high
birth rate.
Vanishing one-by-one of partners are given due to collapse of neoliberalism as an ideology.
Nobody believes that neoliberalism is the future, like many believed in 80th and early 90th. This
looks more and more like a repetion of the path of the USSR after 1945, when communist ideology
was discredited and communist elite slowly fossilized. In 46 years from its victory in WWII the
USSR was dissolved. The same might happen with the USA in 50 years after winning the Cold
War.
Notable quotes:
"... a vanishing one by one of American partners who were previously supportive of U.S. leadership in curbing Iran, particularly its nuclear program. ..."
"... The United States risks losing the cooperation of historic and proven allies in the pursuit of other U.S. national security interests around the world, far beyond Iran. ..."
Only well calibrated multilateral political, economic and diplomatic pressure brought to
bear on Iran with many and diverse partners will produce the results we seek.
"Then there were none" was Agatha Christie's most memorable mystery about a house party in
which each guest was killed off one by one. Donald Trump's policy toward Iran has resulted in
much the same: a vanishing one by one of American partners who were previously supportive
of U.S. leadership in curbing Iran, particularly its nuclear program.
Dozens of states, painstakingly cultivated over decades of American leadership in blocking
Iran's nuclear capability, are now simply gone. One of America's three remaining allies on
these issues, Saudi Arabia, has become a central player in American strategy throughout the
Middle East region. But the Saudis, because of the Jamal Khashoggi killing and other reasons,
may have cut itself out of the action. The United Arab Emirates, so close to the Saudis, may
also fall away.
Such paucity of international support has left the Trump administration dangerously
isolated. "America First" should not mean America alone. The United States risks losing the
cooperation of historic and proven allies in the pursuit of other U.S. national security
interests around the world, far beyond Iran.
... ... ...
European allies share many of our concerns about Iran's regional activities, but they
strongly oppose U.S. reinstitution of secondary sanctions against them. They see the Trump
administration's new sanctions as a violation of the nuclear agreement and UN Security Council
resolutions and as undermining efforts to influence Iranian behavior. The new sanctions and
those applied on November 5 only sap European interest in cooperating to stop Iran.
... ... ...
The United States cannot provoke regime change in Iran any more than it has successfully in
other nations in the region. And, drawing on strategies used to topple governments in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the United States should be wary of launching or trying to spur a military
invasion of Iran.
Lt. Gen. James Clapper (USAF, ret.) is the former Director of National Intelligence.
Thomas R. Pickering is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Russia and
India.
There has been, from the outset, a second level , too: This entire 'inverted
pyramid' of Middle East engineering had, as its single point of departure, Mohammed bin Salman
(MbS). It was Jared Kushner, the Washington Post
reports , who "championed Mohammed as a reformer poised to usher the ultraconservative,
oil-rich monarchy into modernity. Kushner privately argued for months, last year, that Mohammed
would be key to crafting a Middle East peace plan, and that with the prince's blessing, much of
the Arab world would follow". It was Kushner, the Post continued, "who pushed his
father-in-law to make his first foreign trip as president to Riyadh, against objections from
then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – and warnings from Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis".
Well, now MbS has, in one form or another, been implicated in the Khashoggi murder. Bruce
Riedel of Brookings, a longtime Saudi observer and former senior CIA & US defence official,
notes , "for the first time in 50 years, the kingdom has become a force for instability"
(rather than stability in the region), and suggests that there is an element of 'buyer's
remorse' now evident in parts of Washington.
The 'seamless office process' to which the Israeli official referred with Caspit, is known
as 'stovepiping', which is when a foreign state's policy advocacy and intelligence are passed
straight to a President's ear – omitting official Washington from the 'loop'; by-passing
any US oversight; and removing the opportunity for officials to advise on its content. Well,
this has now resulted in the Khashoggi strategic blunder. And this, of course, comes in the
wake of earlier strategic 'mistakes': the Yemen war, the siege of Qatar, the Hariri abduction,
the Ritz-Carlton princely shakedowns.
To remedy this lacuna, an 'uncle' (Prince Ahmad bin Abdel Aziz)
has been dispatched from exile in the West to Riyadh (with security guarantees from the US
and UK intelligences services) to bring order into these unruly affairs, and to institute some
checks and balances into the MbS coterie of advisers, so as to prevent further impetuous
'mistakes'. It seems too, that the US Congress wants the Yemen war, which Prince Ahmad
consistently has opposed (as he opposed MbS elevation as Crown Prince), stopped. (General
Mattis has called for a ceasefire within 30 days.) It is a step toward repairing the Kingdom's
image.
MbS remains – for now – as Crown Prince.
President Sisi and Prime Minister Netanyahu both have expressed
their support for MbS and "as U.S. officials contemplate a more robust response [to the
Khashoggi killing], Kushner has emphasized the importance of the U.S.-Saudi alliance in the
region", the Washington Post reports . MbS' Uncle (who as a son of King Abdel Aziz, under the
traditional succession system, would be himself in line for the throne), no doubt hopes to try
to undo some of the damage done to the standing of the al-Saud family, and to that of the
Kingdom. Will he succeed? Will MbS accede now to Ahmad unscrambling the very centralisation of
power that made MbS so many enemies, in the first place, to achieve it? Has the al-Saud family
the will , or are they too disconcerted by events?
And might President Erdogan throw more wrenches into this delicate process by further
leaking evidence Turkey has, if Washington does not attend sufficiently to his
demands. Erdogan seems ready to pitch for the return of Ottoman leadership for the Sunni world,
and likely still holds some high-value cards up his sleeve (such as intercepts of phone calls
between the murder cell and Riyadh). These cards though are devaluing as the news cycle shifts
to the US mid-terms.
Time will tell, but it is this nexus of uncertain dynamics to which Bruce Reidel refers,
when he talks of
'instability' in Saudi Arabia . The question posed here, though, is how might these events
affect Netanyahu's and MbS' 'war' on Iran?
May 2018 now seems a distant era. Trump is still the same 'Trump', but Putin is not the same
Putin. The Russian Defence Establishment has weighed in with their President to express their
displeasure at Israeli air strikes on Syria – purportedly targeting Iranian forces in
Syria. The Russian Defence Ministry too, has enveloped Syria in a belt of missiles and
electronic disabling systems across the Syrian airspace. Politically, the situation has changed
too: Germany and France have joined
the Astana Process for Syria. Europe wants Syrian refugees to return home, and that
translates into Europe demanding stability in Syria. Some Gulf States too, have
tentatively begun normalising with the Syrian state.
The Americans are still in Syria; but a newly invigorated Erdogan (after the release of the
US pastor, and with all the Khashoggi cards, produced by Turkish intelligence, in his pocket),
intends to crush the Kurdish project in north and eastern Syria, espoused by Israel and the US.
MbS, who was funding this project, on behalf of US and Israel, will cease his involvement (as a
part of the
demands made by Erdogan over the Khashoggi murder). Washington too wants the Yemen war,
which was intended to serve as Iran's 'quagmire', to end forthwith. And Washington wants the
attrition of Qatar to stop, too.
These represent major unravelings of the Netanyahu project for the Middle East, but most
significant are two further setbacks: namely, the loss of Netanyahu's and MbS' stovepipe to
Trump, via Jared Kushner, by-passing all America's own system of 'checks and
balances'. The Kushner 'stovepipe' neither forewarned Washington of coming 'mistakes', nor was
Kushner able to prevent them. Both Congress and the Intelligences Services of the US and UK are
already elbowing into these affairs. They are not MbS fans. It is no secret that
Prince Mohamed bin Naif was their man (he is still under 'palace arrest').
Trump will still hope to continue his 'Iran project' and his Deal of the Century between
Israel and the Palestinians (led nominally by Saudi Arabia herding together the Sunni
world , behind it). Trump does not seek war with Iran, but rather is convinced of a popular
uprising in Iran that will topple the state.
"... Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts ..."
"... The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts. ..."
"... Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well. ..."
"... This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011. ..."
Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts
Brown University has released a new study on the cost
in lives of America's Post-9/11 Wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people
were killed in the course of the three conflicts.
This includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths in fighting and war violence. Civilians make up over half of the roughly
500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as
well.
This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly
in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of
the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011.
The report also notes that over 60,000 US troops were either killed or wounded in the course of the wars. This includes 6,951
US military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
The Brown study also faults the US for having done very little in the last 17 years to provide transparency to the country about
the scope of the conflicts, concluding that they are "inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution
and progress."
"... Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts ..."
"... The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts. ..."
"... Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well. ..."
"... This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011. ..."
Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts
Brown University has released a new study on the cost
in lives of America's Post-9/11 Wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people
were killed in the course of the three conflicts.
This includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths in fighting and war violence. Civilians make up over half of the roughly
500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as
well.
This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly
in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of
the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011.
The report also notes that over 60,000 US troops were either killed or wounded in the course of the wars. This includes 6,951
US military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
The Brown study also faults the US for having done very little in the last 17 years to provide transparency to the country about
the scope of the conflicts, concluding that they are "inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution
and progress."
"... Yes indeed spurred on by greed and "offshoring" the US has been butt busked hard and violently, devastating the middle class and annihilating the poor class, causing unemployment in masses. ..."
"... The 0.1 % have enriched themselves accordingly, gains of upward of 80 % the last ten years are not uncommon. Meanwhile a skilled worker hardly makes what his dad made in the 70 ties in buying power. ..."
"... At present the US government is much like a roque state, it only accepts laws that is in their (despicable junior: Israel) favour. It does not recognize international law. ..."
I have no reason to believe what b reports is false.
Altogether the ways of the US have become more and more predictable the deeper it sinks in
its own dependence on the MIC.
Lets face it the US produces hardly anything but weapons. It hardly sells any produce ,
manufactured in the US, globally.
It has become a low level raw materials provider. Yes indeed spurred on by greed and
"offshoring" the US has been butt busked hard and violently, devastating the middle class and
annihilating the poor class, causing unemployment in masses.
The 0.1 % have enriched themselves accordingly, gains of upward of 80 % the last ten
years are not uncommon. Meanwhile a skilled worker hardly makes what his dad made in the 70
ties in buying power.
The US living high with a budge deficit of (estimated) 1,5 trillion a year, giving tax
cuts to the very rich, in a feeble and completely disbanded attempt at trick down
economics.
... ... ...
That is what we westernes have never learnt, all our empires, short lived but powerful.
collapsed because of greed. Go east look at China, they had empires that indeed last "a
thousand year reich". Obs: China never brought war on a neighbor. So what did they do: they
demanded that a foreign country recognize Chinas statue as a world power and that the Kaiser
be paid some tribute, but as the Chinese going goes a gift is rewarded by a bigger one, so
you would receive double back. And BTW what has the chinese ever done to civilisation: sigh!
The list is too long.
Chinese and Arabian influence on science, maths and surgery/disease control revolutionized
our backward "Christian" feudal regimes. Luckily Luther brought some sense into the madness,
and today the catholic church is largely irrelevant. Is all superstition.
Which brings me back to a country, in which 37 % believe that the sun orbits Earth.17
believe flat earth, 10 - 15 % believe in 6000 year earth.
So we are dealing with a nuclear armed nation that has come provable among the the most
ill-informed, ignorant and badly educated. "Idiocracy" come true. Now the rest of the world
is not too happy about this, this mad bull jumping around in the arena is dangerous...
Both Russia has publicly stated that they will never initiate a nuclear first strike, I
think they need to revisit that statement, and incorporate a first strike option if the US
gets out of hand. At present the US government is much like a roque state, it only
accepts laws that is in their (despicable junior: Israel) favour. It does not recognize
international law.
I am all in favor of a strict and harsh Morganthau /s
They have to learn that today you do not use nuclear weapons on non armed nuclear states.
Iran has no nuclear capabilities as evidenced by god and his mother.
But Israel is such a pitiful small country that a massive bombardment with just
conventional weapons would bring the supremacists to the negotiating table.
Israel can not sustain more than 2 weeks of mobilization and total war, without going
bankrupt. The state is to 25% funded by the US. Once the US goes, Israel goes too. May be
moderates (yes they are there) can build something new.
A curious
coincidence is that the US midterm elections happened one day after the US reimposed its second
round of illegal economic sanctions on Iran, with the focus on oil, shipping, and banking,
along with some other sectors. Despite all but a handful of governments around the world
supporting Iran in this matter (despite apparently two attempted assassinations of opponents of
Iran's government in European nations recently) against the US out of a hope to keep Iran
following the JCPOA nuclear agreement as it has by all reports been doing, the impact of the
midterm elections is probably to reinforce support for Trump's policy, even as mostly he lost
support in the election. The reason is that the most important location for serious critics of
a president's foreign policy usually come out of the Senate, not the House of Representatives
or governors. So, even though the Dems have taken the House and gained governorships, the GOP
gained in the Senate, and some of the GOPs leaving included the few Trump critics, notably
departing Foreign Relations committee Chair, Robert Corker of TN. This is the case, even as
those GOP gains may only amount to a net two (Dem Sinema now ahead in AZ) or even only one
(Nelson in FL may yet pull it out too).
Yet another reason the gains by Dems will probably not lead to much more pressure on Trump
on this is that many Dems at least somewhat support his policy, especially those strongly
influenced by the Israeli government. Thus in today's Washington Post, a lead editorial
(presumably by neoconnish Fred Hiatt) said there may be reasons for imposing some sanctions
because of "malignant" policies by Iran, notably supposedly supplying missiles to the Houthis
in Yemen, plus the Syrian government, and Hezbollah in Lebanon (there are doubts on the extent
of all this), even as WaPo opposes the US withdrawing from the JCPOA and is highly critical of
Saudi Arabia due to the murder of their journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, probably on orders of KSA
Crown Prince MbS, a main enemy of Iran. Indeed, members of both parties in the Senate have
become unhappy with the Saudi war in Yemen and may move to cut US military support of the Saudi
war effort there. But this will probably have little to no effect on the reimposed economic
sanctions on Iran.
As it is, the ultimate impact of the new sanctions is quite complicated with various
cross-cutting effects that are already damaging the Iranian economy, but may end up having less
impact than Trump would like. The most important part of the sanctions involves Iran's oil
exports, which US officials claim they would like to see go to zero. Early forecasts had those
falling to about a third of the about 2.8 million bpd of a few months ago, which anticipation
helped push oil prices up substantially, with Brent crude topping $80 per barrel while West
Texas intermediate crude topped $70 per barrel. But the Trump administration has granted
temporary waivers to 8 countries allowing them to continue importing Iranian oil for a while,
supposedly to avoid excessive disruption of global markers (while not officially announced, the
Japan Times claims the 8 waivered nations are China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey,
Italy [only EU nation on list]. and UAE [yes, that big anti-Iran oil exporter imports oil from
Iran]). As it is, with surging oil inventories in the US, prices have fallen sharply in the
last two weeks, with Brent down to nearly $70 and WTI to nearly $60 , with some commenters
today claiming that oil is turning into a "bear market." While this clearly allows Iran to
export more oil than previously thought for now, the price decline will hurt Iran.
A fundamental clash in this is between governments and the businesses based in their
nations. Only a handful of national governments officially support Trump in this policy,
basically the odd group of Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Bahrain, and apparently Egypt, with a few
others sort of semi-supportive, such as Jordan, if with little enthusiasm. Russia, China,
Turkey, and the major EU nations all oppose Trump's policy. While businesses in Russia in
particular go along with their government's view, nearly all of those that are reasonably large
in the EU nations are obeying the demands of the US government to cut back business relations
with Iran, with poster boys for this being Total and Peugeot from France out of fear of losing
markets in the US or facing sanctions from the US government. All of this has led to efforts in
both China and the EU to set up alternative payment systems to avoid using US dollars and going
through US-controlled financial intermediaries, a big conflict over this involving the SWIFT
payment system, which the US would like to prevent Iran from using while the major European
nations oppose this move by the US. As it is, given the ongoing efforts by they EU nations to
help Iran out, it seems especially unwise of Iranian intel agencies to be attempting to
assassinate people in France and Denmark as they have reportedly done, albeit unsuccessfully so
far.
A final point is that it is extremely unlikely that this policy by Trump will lead to
Iranian leaders kowtowing to him and entering into any negotiations. If anything, they might
get pushed into pulling out of the JCPOA or create trouble for their enemies in various ways.
OTOH, it may be that the sanctions will not lead to as harsh impacts on the Iranian economy as
forecast, whether this is due to the Europeans and Chinese setting up alternative payments
systems, or due to Iran wriggling out of the sanctions whether due to waivers or through such
maneuvers as barter transactions involving oil or the use of "ghost ships" that do not use any
radio communications, something reportedly already going on. We shall see how this all turns
out, but for now Trump probably has gotten a modest boost of support for his policies within
the US as a result of the midterm elections, much as I am not pleased to see this.
Barkley Rosser
Econospeak
"US Policy On Iran After The Midterm Elections"
Karl Kolchak , November 9, 2018 12:52 pm
This is great news! The more support Trump has for his belligerent foreign policy, the
quicker the rest of the world and even the morons who run Europe will finally start to wake
up to the fact that the American empire is teetering on the edge of collapse.
When he was elected, I had.hoped that Trump would inadvertently end up being America's
Gorbachev. Now we just half to hope the empire can be destroyed without dragging all of
humanity down with it.
America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic],
not to protect or favor the American people.
And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to
call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're
FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials
know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these
(((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain
terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?
America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic],
not to protect or favor the American people.
And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to
call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're
FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials
know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these
(((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain
terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?
Fu Ying, the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of China's National People's
Congress, said while confirming the reality that China and Russia now find themselves in the
same trenches: "I just hope that if some people in the U.S. insist on dragging us down the hill
into Thucydides' trap, China will be smart enough not to follow."
Indeed to step back and review the breadth of Russia-China cooperation over the past couple
years alone reveals the full potential "cost" of a US-China conflict , given the ways Russia
could easily be pulled in. Fu Ying articulated the increasingly common view from Beijing, that
"There is no sense of threat from Russia" and that "We feel comfortable back-to-back."
And participants in a
recent study by the National Bureau of Asian Research , a
Seattle-based think tank, actually agree. They were asked whether American policy was at fault
for pushing China and Russia into closer cooperation, and alarmingly, as Bloomberg notes: "Some
among the 100-plus participants called for Washington to prepare for the worst-case scenario
the realignment implies: a two-front war ."
Here's but a partial list of the way Sino-Russian relations have been transformed in recent
years:
China is now Russia's biggest single trade partner.
Since 2015 Russia has been China's top supplier of crude oil, displacing Saudi Arabia.
Early this year Russia ramped up its capacity to pipe crude oil to China, to about 600,000
barrels per day, which is about double the prior capability
Increased coordination at the U.N. Security Council.
Regional coordination in Asia, such as Russia supplying the engines for Chinese-Pakistani
fighter jets, resulting in an increasingly worried India which is seeing Russia move into the
Chinese orbit instead of being an arbiter in Chinese-Pakistani relations
The "bromance" at recent summits between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, who meet each
other with increased regularity.
Joint military exercises between the two are now routine.
This year Russia supplied China with its most advanced S-400 air defense system as well
as Sukhoi SU-35 fighter aircraft
Increased willingness on the part of Russia to thwart Washington's argument that China is
a threat to Moscow's aims in the East.
The new "Power of Siberia" natural gas pipeline set to start pumping 38 billion cubic
meters (1.3 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas per year to northern China in December
2019.
Increasingly discovering non-conflicting interests: Europe and China "are two independent
destinations and two independent routes" for gas and oil, Russian Energy Minister Alexander
Novak said in an October interview. "We do not see any need to redirect volumes."
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in
another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to
clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh
You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to
millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.
China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:
Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and
neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few
resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in
abundance
Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is
the world's factory
USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that
unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of
the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is
laughable.
Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to
normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just
lying.
Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press
privileges of a CNN guy.
I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done
what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.
Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in
another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to
clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh
You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to
millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.
China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:
Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and
neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few
resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in
abundance
Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is
the world's factory
USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that
unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of
the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is
laughable.
Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to
normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just
lying.
Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press
privileges of a CNN guy.
I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done
what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.
When people who voted for Obama realized the Obama is a fraud with strong CIA connections it
was too late...
When people who voted for Trump realized that Trump was a fraud with strong Israeli
connections it was too late.
Notable quotes:
"... Nor does the caravan 'fix' or even illuminate decades of US abuses in Central and South America. It simply gives Trump an opportunity to grandstand and urge his voters to go to the polls. ..."
...And it seems likely, if not certain, that the caravan is a political stunt that will
end in disappointment for the caravan migrants. So I fail to see why you are so angry Debs.
Our discussion doesn't ignore the realities. Nor does the caravan 'fix' or even
illuminate decades of US abuses in Central and South America. It simply gives Trump an
opportunity to grandstand and urge his voters to go to the polls.
We are being played by an establishment that wants to move the country to the right. MAGA!
is a bi-partisan effort fueled by the challenge from China and Russia. This is clear from
Democratic Party priorities and actions as well as what they don't say or do.
Fu Ying, the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of China's National People's
Congress, said while confirming the reality that China and Russia now find themselves in the
same trenches: "I just hope that if some people in the U.S. insist on dragging us down the hill
into Thucydides' trap, China will be smart enough not to follow."
Indeed to step back and review the breadth of Russia-China cooperation over the past couple
years alone reveals the full potential "cost" of a US-China conflict , given the ways Russia
could easily be pulled in. Fu Ying articulated the increasingly common view from Beijing, that
"There is no sense of threat from Russia" and that "We feel comfortable back-to-back."
And participants in a
recent study by the National Bureau of Asian Research , a
Seattle-based think tank, actually agree. They were asked whether American policy was at fault
for pushing China and Russia into closer cooperation, and alarmingly, as Bloomberg notes: "Some
among the 100-plus participants called for Washington to prepare for the worst-case scenario
the realignment implies: a two-front war ."
Here's but a partial list of the way Sino-Russian relations have been transformed in recent
years:
China is now Russia's biggest single trade partner.
Since 2015 Russia has been China's top supplier of crude oil, displacing Saudi Arabia.
Early this year Russia ramped up its capacity to pipe crude oil to China, to about 600,000
barrels per day, which is about double the prior capability
Increased coordination at the U.N. Security Council.
Regional coordination in Asia, such as Russia supplying the engines for Chinese-Pakistani
fighter jets, resulting in an increasingly worried India which is seeing Russia move into the
Chinese orbit instead of being an arbiter in Chinese-Pakistani relations
The "bromance" at recent summits between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, who meet each
other with increased regularity.
Joint military exercises between the two are now routine.
This year Russia supplied China with its most advanced S-400 air defense system as well
as Sukhoi SU-35 fighter aircraft
Increased willingness on the part of Russia to thwart Washington's argument that China is
a threat to Moscow's aims in the East.
The new "Power of Siberia" natural gas pipeline set to start pumping 38 billion cubic
meters (1.3 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas per year to northern China in December
2019.
Increasingly discovering non-conflicting interests: Europe and China "are two independent
destinations and two independent routes" for gas and oil, Russian Energy Minister Alexander
Novak said in an October interview. "We do not see any need to redirect volumes."
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in
another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to
clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh
You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to
millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.
China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:
Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and
neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few
resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in
abundance
Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is
the world's factory
USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that
unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of
the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is
laughable.
Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to
normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just
lying.
Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press
privileges of a CNN guy.
I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done
what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.
Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in
another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to
clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh
You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to
millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.
China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:
Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and
neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few
resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in
abundance
Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is
the world's factory
USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that
unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of
the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is
laughable.
Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to
normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just
lying.
Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press
privileges of a CNN guy.
I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done
what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.
A long fight by lawmakers like Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) is set to go mainstream, and an
antiwar push on Yemen soon after the midterms could show how.
WASHINGTON ― As Democrats plan for a potential future in which they have control of
the U.S. House, lawmakers, candidates and outside groups close to the party are quietly
preparing a new push against the overlooked war in Afghanistan. The last time the party
controlled the lower chamber of Congress, the U.S. had close to 50,000 troops in Afghanistan.
Today that number is 15,000 -- but it's been eight years, and there's still no clarity about
when the longest war in American history will actually come to an end. President Donald Trump 's stated
policy is that the U.S. presence has no time limit. So Democrats are considering long-discussed
proposals to torpedo the war's entire legal justification -- the sweeping post-9/11
congressional authorization that has been used to support U.S. military action well beyond
Afghan borders -- and tie funding for the campaign to clearly outlined strategic goals and
troop reductions. There's also talk of using new oversight powers to hold top officials,
military commanders, defense contractors and foreign partners accountable for accusations of
human rights violations, corruption and political posturing at the cost of human lives. And
while party leaders are loath to commit to a particular course, they feel certain this is an
issue their colleagues and their political base see as a priority. A dramatic but now largely
forgotten vote in June 2017 underscored why this is a natural fight for Democrats. House
Appropriations Committee lawmakers from both parties voted for the first time for a measure
long pushed by war critic Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) that would repeal the authorization. GOP
leadership quashed the effort, but it clearly signaled that, after years of worrying about
being seen as too dovish, Democrats have reached a moment when even the other party and its
voters can seriously consider serious antiwar action. "We've come a long way from just one vote
in opposition [when the authorization came up in 2001] to a widespread recognition among
members of Congress that this was an overly-broad authorization that set the stage for
perpetual war," Lee wrote in an email to HuffPost. She sees Democratic unity on the issue
today: "There's a lot of common ground across the caucus around holding this debate and
vote."
They were saying that Trump didn't promote the economic boom enough. Then they trotted
out their economic analyst to tout all the great economic statistics!
Well of course, for the corporate media lying about the economy has priority over any kind
of Trump-bashing.
Unfortunately, Debsisdead is correct. The United States cannot be fixed. It could be
that Trump knows what's needed and is deliberately trying to set the US on a course towards
sanity using shock treatment, and is deliberately trying to wean America from the petrodollar
in such a manner that Americans have no other country to blame/bomb, thus saving civilization
from America's inevitable spasm of ultraviolence when the BRICS succeed in taking the
petrodollar down. This seems unlikely, though.
The sad reality is that the delusion Americans suffer from (result of their universal
cradle-to-grave brainwashing that I mentioned earlier) is too deeply rooted as a core
component of their identities.
That mass-based delusion must be overcome before America's psychotic behavior on the world
stage can be addressed, but I see no forces within the US making any progress in that
direction at all.
Even the brightest and most humanistic Americans are horribly twisted to appalling
evil by unquestionable faith in their own exceptionalism. As a consequence it could be
that the only hope for humanity lies in a radical USA-ectomy with the resulting stump being
cauterized.
I certainly wish there were some other way, but I don't see one.
"... So, as with Rome, Greed is Good has done more to hinder the Outlaw US Empire than anything done by the so-called Revisionist Enemies. Combined with Trump's totally unwise Trade War policy forcing all other nations to abandon US-centric financial institutions and its currency, the specter of the Outlaw US Empire being defeated by its own ideology is rather marvelous, even hilarious, although any levity must be tempered by the Empire's brutality and its massive crimes against humanity that've destroyed millions of innocents. ..."
Aah . the woeful state of the Outlaw US Empire's military, done in by Neoliberal ideology,
the tool designed to help Wall Street being destroyed by its machinations. Yesterday, a
translated Russian article based upon
a Reuters report and the
Department of War research paper (Large PDF) it was based upon appeared at
The Saker . Instead of writing a separate comment here, what follows is the comment I
made there.
"What the Reuters article makes clear but avoids mentioning is the culprit is Neoliberal
ideology that resulted in the deindustrialization and financialization of the Outlaw US
Empire's domestic economy all for a Few Dollars More--that such hollowing out was official
Washington--and Wall Street--policy starting with Carter in 1978, greatly accelerated by
Bush/Reagan during the 1980s, then finished off by Clinton/Bush from 1993-2008.
The Defense Department research paper that's linked is also a hoot as it calls for a level
of performance by the procurement and manufacturing systems that's impossible to accomplish
given decades of corruption that's made the MIC what it is today--a maker of overpriced
junk.
Read the transcript of the latest Michael Hudson interview to discover Wall Street's
policy goals and compare them to what Trump wants to accomplish via MAGA, where
Hudson states banks don't lend to--help capitalize--industry because not enough profit
exists there compared to other opportunities.
So, as with Rome, Greed is Good has done more to hinder the Outlaw US Empire than
anything done by the so-called Revisionist Enemies. Combined with Trump's totally unwise
Trade War policy forcing all other nations to abandon US-centric financial institutions and
its currency, the specter of the Outlaw US Empire being defeated by its own ideology is
rather marvelous, even hilarious, although any levity must be tempered by the Empire's
brutality and its massive crimes against humanity that've destroyed millions of
innocents.
"So, as with Rome, Greed is Good has done more to hinder the Outlaw US Empire than
anything done by the so-called Revisionist Enemies. Combined with Trump's totally unwise
Trade War policy forcing all other nations to abandon US-centric financial institutions and
its currency, the specter of the Outlaw US Empire being defeated by its own ideology is
rather marvelous"
The U.S. is indeed collapsing under its own mismanagement, the result of converting its
(weak) democracy into a full-fledged oligarchic dictatorship. The only solution is for the
U.S. to retrench into a shell in order to re-make itself.
Intentionally or not, Trump's policies are hastening this retrenchment.
Thanks for the link to that poll. Those are astonishing results, to find the mainstream
population afraid of the same things we are: that the US is not being representatively
governed because its government is totally corrupt, and that meanwhile the planet and country
are being stripped of resources, in a vicious downward spiral of paralysis.
It's worth quoting the results in full (sorry it doesn't format well):
[begin]
Below is a list of the 10 fears for which the highest percentage of Americans reported
being "Afraid" or "Very Afraid." :
Top Ten Fears of 2018 --->> % Afraid or Very Afraid
1. Corrupt government officials --->> 74%
2. Pollution of oceans, rivers and lakes --->> 62%
3. Pollution of drinking water --->> 61%
4. Not having enough money for the future --->> 57%
5. People I love becoming seriously ill --->> 57%
6. People I love dying --->> 56%
7. Air pollution --->> 55%
8. Extinction of plant and animal species --->> 54%
9. Global warming and climate change --->> 53%
10. High medical bills --->> 53%
If there's any reality in these numbers it means that a politically vast majority of
people in the US are focused on the right things, principal among which is that their
recourse to address these things is completely broken. The obvious thought in a once famously
"can-do" culture must obviously be that the government must be fixed or replaced. The tough
question lingering is, How?
What you illustrate are known as Structural Adjustment Loans/Programs promoted by both IMF
and World Bank as the major plank of Neoliberal ideology begun by McNamara when he was
appointed to WB by Carter in 1978. This recap provided by developmental economist and
critic Walden Bello details why and for whom the IMF/WB loans were designed to benefit--they
differed little from the purposes of bilateral loans made by the US treasury during the Age
of Dollar Diplomacy, which provided the ideological basis for robbing those nations. The
point being US Imperialism atop centuries of Spanish Colonialism is why Latin America is do
developmentally poor and kept that way through gross class distortions and outright Class War
sponsored by CIA and Spain.
"... creates a parallel society in the countryside that never see these money, but are the pros of having that money there and contributing to the economy outweigh these cons? It would if the money were invested with a view of making a profit from a factory, but I don't think that happens in this case. What do you think? ..."
"... The result is what we Australians call a two-speed economy or a split economy, where one sub-economy caters for the very rich (real estate agents specialising in luxury properties, lots of luxury hotels and playgrounds, boutique shops and restaurants) and the other sub-economy is hidden away, made up of local people who have to rent their homes because they can't afford to buy their own homes, who have to hold down two or more jobs to survive and who supply the staff for the hotels, shops and restaurants frequented by the rich. Eventually the local people start disappearing to find better-paying jobs and the hotels, restaurants, etc start bringing in foreign labour to replace them. ..."
I've lately been wondering about the economics of being a big tax haven like the UK. A place
like the Bahamas, I think benefits from it since there are so few citizens and it's easy to
bribe them, and it costs a lot less than paying taxes back home. But then you move on to
Panama, and the grey area starts. Someone is getting rich there, but the population of Panama
is a lot bigger than that of the Bahamas, and that population is not exactly rich. Does it
create bigger class divisions and also retards politics in terms of trying to develop their
own unique economy not dependent on servicing the rich foreign tax thieves?
Then you get to London and the UK, with their absolutely enormous population. Most of the
people outside of London will never see any of this money, and in London it creates a runaway
housing crisis as the best investment for laundered money is thought to be real estate.
Obviously there is investment in the local economy other than that, such as buying football
clubs and stores, but I don't think that money goes towards funding a pharma start-up or
buying stock in a local car company.
So it exacerbates inequality sure (London real estate is insane and out of reach of most
locals), and creates a parallel society in the countryside that never see these money, but
are the pros of having that money there and contributing to the economy outweigh these cons?
It would if the money were invested with a view of making a profit from a factory, but I
don't think that happens in this case. What do you think?
I think it is an extremely interesting discussion point; one that I would not venture into
without doing a bit of research, but right now I have to leave for work. It's definitely
something we could chew over for a bit, and I imagine Jen will have something for us on it.
Blatnoi, if you get hold of the Nicholas Shaxson book I mentioned before, I recall there's a
chapter that discusses the effect of being a tax haven has on the Channel Islands economy and
Jersey Island in particular. The money that ends up there is in the pockets of a very few
people who use it to buy and real estate as if it were shares on the stock market.
The result
is what we Australians call a two-speed economy or a split economy, where one sub-economy
caters for the very rich (real estate agents specialising in luxury properties, lots of
luxury hotels and playgrounds, boutique shops and restaurants) and the other sub-economy is
hidden away, made up of local people who have to rent their homes because they can't afford
to buy their own homes, who have to hold down two or more jobs to survive and who supply the
staff for the hotels, shops and restaurants frequented by the rich. Eventually the local
people start disappearing to find better-paying jobs and the hotels, restaurants, etc start
bringing in foreign labour to replace them.
I certainly agree with you that a two-speed economy creates and exacerbates class
divisions, and moreover destroys not only local economies in the areas where it operates but
also local societies and cultures.
Aha I Googled "Shaxson", "economy" and "Jersey" and out of what Google threw at me, I
found this account by Bram Wanrooij of his time living in Jersey with his family for six
years:
An excerpt from Wanrooij's post:
".. I have never been so aware of wealth discrepancies as I have in Jersey. And that
says a lot, as I have lived in places like Kenya and Sudan when I was younger. Disparity is
on full display, in combination with a shameless promotion of greed and privilege. Range
Rovers wizz past you, their 4×4 engines sputtering out clouds of pollution, utterly
useless on a small island with a decent infrastructure and no real elevation to speak of. You
even see flashy sports cars; quite amusing when you consider the speed limit is 40 at most.
What are these people trying to prove?
The island caters to the very wealthy, especially reflected in everyday expenses and
housing and travel costs. Getting off the island becomes ever more impossible as your family
grows, with flights to England ridiculously expensive and ferries charging a small fortune
for carrying you across the channel. In this way, Jersey has quickly become a financial and
geographical prison for middle and low earners.
In the six years I've lived here, my family has had to move six times and every time we
had to rent a house which was slightly beyond our budget, even though both my wife and I are
hard workers with honest professions. I have seen qualified, talented people leave because of
this, a phenomenon which makes no sense, neither on a social, nor an economic level "
Comparisons between the Jersey-style financial two-speed economy and economies afflicted
with so-called Dutch disease (typically economies like Saudi Arabia and others dependent on
oil, gas and mineral exploitation) have been made. Characteristics of such economies are
outlined in detail at this link: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11977/oil/dutch-disease/
I've lived on the outskirts of London for many years and what I've seen is the city becoming
increasingly hollowed out. You can walk around street after street at night and everywhere is
in darkness – the lights are out because no-one is home, not that evening, not ever.
London is permanently under construction; huge numbers of new buildings have gone up in
recent years – all of them beyond the purchasing power of most Londoners – and
huge numbers of those new buildings have been purchased off plan by overseas investors with
no intention or interest in living in them.
When the money moves in existing communities disintegrate, local councils seek to dump
those in social housing on other, less fashionable boroughs (thus exacerbating housing
problems in those areas) or even outside London so housing can be razed and the land sold to
developers, those renting in the private sector are priced out, local businesses close down
– their market has gone plus insane rent and rates increases etc etc. London used to
have a bit of a 'village' feel to it – distinct areas with settled communities,
traditional butcher-baker-candlestick maker high streets, a sense of community. All gone or
going.
The multimillion-pound wrecks are evidence of a property culture in which the world's
richest people see British property as investments. One Hyde Park, a block of apartments in
Knightsbridge, is another example where more than half the flats are registered with the
council as empty or second homes.
Buying properties in hot-spot areas and leaving them empty – because you plan to trade
and sell them if and when the prices rocket up to levels you want – would be typical
behaviour of people who treat property portfolios like share portfolios. You want to be ready
to sell when the price is right so you don't move tenants into them. Getting rid of tenants
can be a hassle if you want to sell quickly.
Also buying property and deliberately leaving it to rot is a way of using it as a tax
shelter to minimise land and other taxes, lower your income or claim a tax rebate on losses
you make because you're forking out more in land taxes, council rates and other rates than
you are making on the property, depending on the taxation jurisdiction prevailing in the area
or country where you have bought the property.
Apparently, the U.S. authorities believe that by squeezing the corrupt Russian money out
of the Great Britain, they would force those corrupt rich Russians to return their money home
and remake the Russia as a modern Western nation with the rule of law and checks and
balances.
At least, that's what I have heard at anti-Putin forums. So -- and especially so in view
of your article -- that ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
But if that's indeed the idea -- I'm skeptical that it would work. Definitely, it sounds
alright, and if it were implemented, say, 30 years ago -- it might have sort of worked, by
preventing the corrupt Russians to move their assets abroad. Now, I think, they would just
move their fortunes into some other friendly jurisdiction outside of the reach of Uncle Sam
and Russia's authorities.
If getting at dirty money was that easy, I doubt that China would ever need to resort to
such a complex operation as the "Fox Hunt".
Another kick in the sack for Britain, caused by Washington but for which Washington will
suffer no penalty. That Special Relationship certainly is something, isn't it?
I think you're probably right – although I never thought of such a devious motive as
forcing Putin's enemies (in some cases) back to Russia, where they would presumably start
financing the opposition and making trouble, I agree it likely would not work according to
plan. Very likely all it would accomplish is the withdrawal of their money from London, to be
hidden somewhere else.
by Chris Bertram on October 31, 2018 Candice Delmas, A
Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil (Oxford University Press, 2018).
Political obligation has always been a somewhat unsatisfactory topic in political
philosophy, as has, relatedly, civil disobedience. The "standard view" of civil disobedience,
to be found in Rawls, presupposes that we live in a nearly just society in which some serious
violations of the basic liberties yet occur and conceives of civil disobedience as a deliberate
act of public lawbreaking, nonviolent in character, which aims to communicate a sense of grave
wrong to our fellow citizens. To demonstrate their fidelity to law, civil disobedients are
willing to accept the consequences of their actions and to take their punishment. When Rawls
first wrote about civil disobedience, in 1964, parts of the US were openly and flagrantly
engaged in the violent subordination of their black population, so it was quite a stretch for
him to think of that society as "nearly just". But perhaps its injustice impinged less
obviously on a white professor at an elite university in Massachusetts than it did on poor
blacks in the deep South.
The problems with the standard account hardly stop there. Civil disobedience thus conceived
is awfully narrow. In truth, the range of actions which amount to resistance to the state and
to unjust societies is extremely broad, running from ordinary political opposition, through
civil disobedience to disobedience that is rather uncivil, through sabotage, hacktivism,
leaking, whistle-blowing, carrying out Samaritan assistance in defiance of laws that prohibit
it, striking, occupation, violent resistance, violent revolution, and, ultimately, terrorism.
For the non-ideal world in which we actually live and where we are nowhere close to a "nearly
just" society, we need a better theory, one which tells us whether Black Lives Matter activists
are justified or whether antifa can punch Richard Spencer. Moreover, we need a theory that
tells us not only what we may do but also what we are obliged to do: when is standing by in the
face of injustice simply not morally permissible.
Step forward Candice Delmas with her superb and challenging book The Duty to Resist:
When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil (Oxford University Press). Delmas points out the
manifold shortcomings of the standard account and how it is often derived from taking the
particular tactics of the civil rights movement and turning pragmatic choices into moral
principles. Lots of acts of resistance against unjust societies, in order to be effective, far
from being communicative, need to be covert. Non-violence may be an effective strategy, but
sometimes those resisting state injustice have a right to defend themselves. [click
to continue ]
Hidari 10.31.18 at 3:41 pm (no link)
Strangely enough, the link I was looking at immediately before I clicked on the OP, was this:
It would be interesting to see a philosopher's view on whether or not civil disobedience
was necessary, and to what extent, to prevent actions that will lead to the end of our
species.
Ebenezer Scrooge 10.31.18 at 4:52 pm (no link)
Two points:
As far as the Nazi-punching goes, it is important to remember that we hung Julius Streicher
for nothing but speech acts.
I have no idea who Candice Delmas is, but "Delmas" is a French name. The French have a very
different attitude toward civil disobedience than we do.
Moz of Yarramulla 10.31.18 at 11:23 pm (no link)
civil disobedience as a deliberate act of public lawbreaking, nonviolent in character,
which aims to communicate a sense of grave wrong to our fellow citizens.
I think that's a pretty narrow view of civil disobedience even if you just count the
actions of the protesters. Often NVDA is aimed at or merely accepts that a violent response
is inevitable. The resistance at Parihaka, for example, was in no doubt that the response
would be military and probably lethal. And Animal Liberation are often classified as
terrorists by the US and UK governments while murderers against abortion are not.
Which is to say that the definition of "nonviolent" is itself an area of conflict, with
some taking the Buddhist extremist position that any harm or even inconvenience to any living
thing makes an action violent, and others saying that anything short of genocide can be
nonviolent (and then there are the "intention is all" clowns). Likewise terrorism, most
obviously of late the Afghani mujahideen when they transitioned from being revolutionaries to
terrorists when the invader changed.
In Australia we have the actual government taking the view that any action taken by a
worker or protester that inconveniences a company is a criminal act and the criminal must
both compensate the company (including consequential damages) as well as facing jail time.
tasmania and
NSW and of course the anti-union
laws . The penalties suggest they're considered crimes of violence, as does the
rhetoric.
Moz of Yarramulla 11.01.18 at 12:13 am (no link)
Jeff@11
one should never legitimize any means toward social change that you would not object to
seeing used by your mortal enemies.
Are you using an unusual definition of "mortal enemy" here? Viz, other than "enemy that
wants to kill you"? Even US law has theoretical prohibitions on expressing that
intention.
It's especially odd since we're right now in the middle of a great deal of bad-faith use
of protest techniques by mortal enemies. "free speech" used to protect Nazi rallies,
"academic freedom" to defend anti-science activists, "non-violent protest" used to describe
violent attacks, "freedom of religion" used to excuse terrorism, the list goes on.
In Australia we have a 'proud boys' leader coming to Australia who has somehow managed to
pass the character test imposed by our government. He's the leader of a gang that requires an
arrest for violence as a condition of membership and regularly says his goal is to incite
others to commit murder. It seems odd that our immigration minister has found those things to
be
not disqualifying while deporting someone for merely
associating with a vaguely similar gang , but we live in weird times.
As far as the Nazi-punching goes, it is important to remember that we hung Julius
Streicher for nothing but speech acts.
I do remember that*, but it's not clear to me why you think it's important to remember it
in this context. If somebody who had fatally punched a Nazi speaker were prosecuted for
murder, I doubt that 'he was a Nazi speaker' would be accepted as a defence on the basis of
the Streicher precedent.
*Strictly speaking, I don't remember it as something that 'we' did: I wasn't born at the
time, and it's not clear to me who you mean by 'we'. (Streicher himself probably would have
said that it was the Jews, or possibly the Jews and the Bolsheviks, who were hanging him, but
I don't suppose that would be your view.) However, I'm aware of the events you're referring
to, which is the real point.
Rawls presupposes that we live in a nearly just society in which some serious violations
of the basic liberties yet occur For the non-ideal world in which we actually live and where
we are nowhere close to a "nearly just" society, we need a better theory
People need to stop spreading this misinterpretation about Rawls on civil disobedience, which
I've seen several places in the past few years. Rawls focuses on the case of a nearly just
society not because he thinks it's the only case in which you can engage in civil
disobedience but because he thinks it's the only case in which there are difficulties with
justifying it. He states this very clearly in A Theory of Justice : in cases where the
society is not nearly just, there are no difficulties in justifying civil disobedience or
even sometimes armed resistance. His natural duty account is not put forward as a general
theory of civil disobedience but to argue that civil disobedience can admit of justification
even in the case in which it is hardest to justify.
I'm not a fan of Rawls myself, but I don't know how he could possibly have been more clear
on this, since he makes all these points explicitly.
LFC 11.02.18 at 12:45 am (no link)
J-D @18
The Nuremberg tribunal was set up and staffed by the U.S., Britain, USSR, and France; so
whether Ebenezer's "we" was intended to refer to the four countries collectively or just to
the U.S., it's clear who hanged Streicher et al., and the tone of your comment on this point
is rather odd.
anon 11.02.18 at 4:23 pm (no link)
Resisting by protesting is OK.
However, here in the USA, actual legislation creating laws is done by our elected
representatives.
So if you're an Amaerican and really want Social Change and aren't just posturing or
'virtue signaling' make sure you vote in the upcoming election.
I'm afraid too many will think that their individual vote won't 'matter' or the polls show
it isn't needed or some other excuse to justify not voting. Please do not be that person.
Don Berinati 11.02.18 at 5:06 pm (no link)
Recently re-reading '1968' by Kurlansky and he repeatedly made this point about protests
– that to be effective they had to get on television (major networks, not like our
youtube, I think, so it would be seen by the masses in order to sway them) and to do that the
acts had to be outlandish because they were competing for network time. This increasingly led
to violent acts, which almost always worked in getting on the news, but flew in the face of
King's and others peaceful methods.
So, maybe punching out a Nazi is the way to change people's minds or at least get them to
think about stuff.
It was only an announcement, but think of it as the beginning of a journey into hell. Last
week, President Donald Trump
made public his decision to abrogate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), a
1987 agreement with the Soviet Union. National Security Advisor
John Bolton , a Cold Warrior in a post-Cold War world,
promptly flaunted that announcement on a trip to Vladimir Putin's Moscow. To grasp the
import of that decision, however, quite another kind of voyage is necessary, a trip down memory
lane.
That 1987 pact between Moscow and Washington was no small thing in a world that, during the
Cuban Missile Crisis only 25 years earlier, had reached the edge of nuclear Armageddon. The
INF Treaty led to the elimination of thousands
of nuclear weapons, but its significance went far beyond that. As a start, it closed the books
on the nightmare of a Europe caught between the world-ending strategies of the two superpowers,
since most of those "intermediate-range" missiles were targeting that very continent. No
wonder, last week, a European Union spokesperson, responding to Trump,
fervently defended the treaty as a permanent "pillar" of international order.
To take that trip back three decades in time and remember how the INF came about should be
an instant reminder of just how President Trump is playing havoc with something essential to
human survival.
In October 1986 in Reykjavik, Iceland, the leaders of the United States and the Soviet
Union, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail
Gorbachev , briefly came close to fully freeing the planet from the horrifying prospect of
nuclear annihilation. In his second inaugural address, a year and a half earlier, President
Reagan had wishfully called for "the total elimination" of nuclear weapons. At that Reykjavik
summit, Gorbachev, a pathbreaking Soviet leader, promptly took the president up on that dream,
proposing -- to the dismay of the aides of both leaders -- a total nuclear disarmament pact
that would take effect in the year 2000.
Reagan promptly agreed in principle. "Suits me fine," he said. "That's always been my goal."
But it didn't happen. Reagan had another dream, too -- of a space-based missile defense system
against just such weaponry, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), also dubbed "Star Wars." He
refused to yield on the subject when Gorbachev rejected SDI as the superpower arms race
transferred into space. "This meeting is over," Reagan then said.
Of the failure of Reykjavik, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze would then
comment :
"When future generations read the transcripts of this meeting, they will not forgive us." At
that point, the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and the USSR had hit a combined 60,000
weapons and were still growing. (Five new American nuclear weapons were being added each
day.) A month after Reykjavik, in fact, the U.S. deployed a new B-52-based cruise missile
system in violation of the 1979 SALT II Treaty. Hawks in Moscow were pressing for similar
escalations. Elites on both sides -- weapons manufacturers, intelligence and political
establishments, think tanks, military bureaucracies, and pundits -- were appalled at what the
two leaders had almost agreed to. The national security priesthood, East and West, wanted to
maintain what was termed "the stability of the strategic stalemate," even if such stability,
based on ever-expanding arsenals, could not have been less stable.
But a widespread popular longing for relief from four decades of nuclear dread had been
growing on both sides of the Iron Curtain. In a surge of anti-nuclear
activism , millions of ordinary citizens took to the streets of cities in the U.S. and
Europe to protest the superpower nuclear establishments. Even behind the Iron Curtain, voices
for peace could be heard. "Listen," Gorbachev pleaded after Reykjavik, "to the demands of the
American people, the Soviet people, the peoples of all countries."
A Watershed Treaty
As it happened, the Soviet leader refused to settle for Reagan's no. Four months after the
Iceland summit, he proposed an agreement "without delay" to remove from Europe all intermediate
missiles -- those with a range well under that of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
When Pentagon officials tried to swat Gorbachev's proposal aside by claiming that there could
be no such agreement without on-site inspections, he said fine, inspect away! That was an
unprecedented concession from the Soviet Union.
President Reagan was surrounded by men like then-Assistant Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz
(later to become infamous for his role in promoting a post-9/11 invasion of Iraq), who assumed
Gorbachev was a typical Soviet "master of deceit." But for all his hawkishness, the president
had other instincts as well. Events would show that, on the subject of nukes (SDI
notwithstanding), Reagan had indeed recognized the threat to the human future posed by the
open-ended accumulation of ever more of those weapons and had become a kind of nuclear
abolitionist. Even if ending that threat was inconceivable to him, his desire to mitigate it
would prove genuine.
At the time, however, Reagan had other problems to deal with. Just as Gorbachev put forward
his surprising initiative, the American president found himself engulfed in the Iran-Contra
scandal -- a criminal conspiracy to trade arms for hostages with Iran, while illegally aiding
right-wing paramilitaries in Central America. It threatened to become his Watergate. It would,
in the end, lead to the indictments of 14 members of his administration. Beleaguered, he
desperately wanted to change the subject. A statesman-like rescue of faltering arms-control
negotiations might prove just the helping hand he was looking for. So the day before he went
on
television to abjectly offer repentance for Iran-Contra, he announced that he would accept
Gorbachev's INF proposal. His hawkish inner circle was thoroughly disgusted by the gesture.
Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger promptly resigned in protest. (He would later be
indicted for Iran-Contra.)
On December 8, 1987, Reagan and Gorbachev would indeed meet in Washington and
sign the INF Treaty, eliminating more than 2,000 ground-based warheads and giving Europe
the reprieve its people had wanted. This would be the first actual reduction in nuclear weapons
to occur since two atomic bombs were built at Los Alamos in 1945. The INF Treaty proved
historic for turning back the tide of escalation. It showed that the arms race could be not
just frozen but reversed, that negotiations could lead the two superpowers out of what seemed
like the ultimate impasse -- a model that should be urgently applicable today.
In reality, the mutually reinforcing hair-trigger nuclear posture of the United States and
the Soviet Union was not much altered by the treaty, since only land-based, not air- and
submarine-launched missiles, were affected by it and longer range ICBMs were off the table.
(Still, Europe could breathe a bit easier, even if, in operational terms, nuclear danger had
not been much reduced.) Yet that treaty would prove a turning point, opening the way to a
better future. It would be essential to the political transformation that quickly followed, the
wholly unpredicted and surprisingly non-violent end to the Cold War that arrived not quite two
years later. The treaty showed that the arms race itself could be ended -- and eventually, it
nearly would be. That is the lesson that somehow needs to be preserved in the Trump era.
A Man for All Apocalypses
In reality, the Trump administration's abandonment of the INF Treaty has little to do with
the actual deployment of intermediate-range missiles, whether those that the Pentagon may now
seek to emplace in Europe or those apparently already being put in place in Russia. In truth,
such nuclear firepower will not add much to what submarine- and air-launched cruise missiles
can already do. As for Vladimir Putin's bellicosity, removing the restraints on arms control
will only magnify the Russian leader's threatening behavior. However, it should be clear by now
that Donald Trump's urge to trash the treaty comes from his own
bellicosity , not from Russian (or, for that matter, Chinese) aggressiveness. Trump seems
to deplore the pact precisely because of what it meant to Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev,
as well as to the millions who cheered them on long ago: its repudiation of an apocalyptic
future. (As
his position on climate change indicates, the president is visibly a man for all
apocalypses.)
Trump has launched a second nuclear age by rejecting the treaty that was meant to initiate
the closing of the first one. The arms race was then slowed, but, alas, the competitors
stumbled on through the end of the Cold War. Shutting that arms-contest down completely
remained an unfinished task, in part because the dynamic of weapons reduction proved so
reversible even before Donald Trump made it into the Oval Office. George W. Bush, for instance,
struck a blow against arms control with his
2002 abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which rekindled Reagan's Star Wars
fantasy. The way Washington subsequently promoted missile defense systems in Europe, especially
in Poland, where a
nearly $5 billion missile contract was agreed to this year, empowered the most hawkish wing
of the Kremlin, guaranteeing just the sort of Russian build-up that has indeed occurred. If
present Russian intermediate-range missile deployments are in violation of the INF Treaty, they
did not happen in a vacuum.
Barack Obama, of course, won the Nobel Peace Prize
in the early moments of his presidency for his vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world, yet
not even he could curb the malevolent influence of nuclear planning in the Pentagon and
elsewhere in Washington. To get approval of the 2010 New START Treaty, which was to further
reduce the total number of strategic warheads and launchers on both sides, from the Republican
Senate, the Peace Laureate president had to agree to an $80 billion renewal of
America's existing nuclear arsenal just when it was ripe for a fuller dismantling. That devil's
bargain with Washington's diehard nuclear hawks further empowered Russia's similarly hawkish
militarists.
All of this reflects a pattern established relatively early in the Cold War years. U.S. arms
escalations in that era -- from the long-range bomber and the hydrogen bomb to the
nuclear-armed submarine and the cruise missile to the "high frontier" of space -- inevitably
prompted the Kremlin to follow in lockstep (and these days, you would need to
add the Chinese into the equation as well). Americans should recall that, since August 6,
1945, the ratcheting up of nuclear weapons competition has always begun in Washington. And so
it has again.
By the time the Obama administration left office, the Defense Department was already
planning to "modernize" the U.S. nuclear arsenal in a massively expensive way. Last February,
with the release of the
Pentagon's 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, the Trump administration committed to that arsenal's
full bore reinvention, big time, to the tune of at least
$1.2 trillion and possibly $1.6 trillion over the next three decades. ICBM silos only
recently slated for closing will be rebuilt. There will be new generations of nuclear-armed
bombers and submarines, as well as nuclear cruise missiles. There will be wholly new nuclear
weapons expressly
designed to be "usable." And in that context, American nuclear strategy is also being
recast. For the first time, the United States is now explicitly threatening to launch those
"usable" weapons in response to non-nuclear assaults.
The surviving lynchpin of arms control is that New START Treaty that mattered so to Obama in
2010. It capped deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 and implied that there would be
further reductions to come. It must, however, be renewed in 2021. Trump is already
on record calling it a bad deal, but he may not have to wait until possible reelection in
2020 to do it in. His INF Treaty abrogation might do the trick first. Limits on long-range
strategic missiles may not survive the pressures that are sure to follow an arms race involving
the intermediate variety.
No less worrisome, the Trump administration's fervent support for the Pentagon's
modernization, and so reinvention, of the American nuclear arsenal amounts to a blatant
violation of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which required nuclear powers to work toward
"the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date." The president's explicit desire to
maintain an ever more lethal nuclear arsenal into the indefinite future violates that
requirement and will certainly undermine that treaty, too.
It's no exaggeration to say that those arms control treaties, taken together, probably saved
the world from a nuclear Armageddon
"... In that remarkable volume, Schell offered a stunning vision of what a ten-thousand-megaton nuclear strike on the U.S. might mean. ("In the ten seconds or so after each bomb hit, as blast waves swept outward from thousands of ground zeros, the physical plant of the United States would be swept away like leaves in a gust of wind.") In the end, after radiation had also taken its toll, he wrote, the United States -- in a phrase that's haunted me ever since -- "would be a republic of insects and grass." ..."
He was the candidate who, while talking to a foreign policy expert, reportedly
wondered "why we can't use nuclear weapons." He was the man who would never rule anything out or take any "cards," including
nuclear ones, off the proverbial table. He was the fellow who, as president-elect, was
eager to expand
the American nuclear arsenal and
told
Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski, "Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all."
I'm referring, of course, to the president who, early on,
spoke with his top national security officials of returning the country to a Cold War footing when it came to such weaponry and
called for the equivalent of a
tenfold expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. I'm thinking of the president who once
threatened North Korea with "fire and fury like the world has never seen" and
proudly
claimed that he had a "bigger nuclear button" than that country's leader, Kim Jong-un.
Given his fascination with nuclear weaponry, it's hardly surprising that the very same president would
decide to
pull the U.S. out of the Cold War-era 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) or that his vice president would
refuse to rule out -- another potentially treaty-busting act -- the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. It's a gesture that,
as TomDispatch
regular and former Boston Globe columnist James Carroll explains today, could not be more devastating when it comes
to creating a new nuclear arms race on this increasingly
godforsaken
planet of ours. Reading Carroll's piece, I thought of a mobilizing nuclear moment in my own life. It was the time in 1982 when
I read Jonathan Schell's bestselling book The Fate of the Earth , which helped create a global anti-nuclear movement, millions
of active citizens desiring a nuke-free world, that prepared the way for the INF Treaty.
In that remarkable volume, Schell offered
a stunning vision of what a ten-thousand-megaton nuclear strike on the U.S. might mean. ("In the ten seconds or so after each bomb
hit, as blast waves swept outward from thousands of ground zeros, the physical plant of the United States would be swept away like
leaves in a gust of wind.") In the end, after radiation had also taken its toll, he wrote, the United States -- in a phrase that's
haunted me ever since -- "would be a republic of insects and grass."
That, in other words, is what it might mean, in the twenty-first century, as in the previous one, for a president to put all those
nuclear "cards" back on the table and "outmatch and outlast them all."
"Phil Collins
The only thing that can stop this ever happening is if the American people stand up to these
psychopaths running their country its called people power and would stop them in their tracks
madmen now run the Whitehouse"
I'm not surprised that you are such a fine shot with his harpoon considering your naval
background, Mark! The UK is slowly sinking to its appropriate level of incompetence and
self-delusion with the likes of former PM Dave Cameron declaring that he is 'shit bored' and
would like to return to cabinet, preferably as Foreign Minister. That could be arranged, but
as Foreign minister in Libya.
Still, the whole 'Russian corrupting in Britain' is the British government's perception
management at its finest. As someone recently posted on the last thread, a Spanish case
against RUSSIAN MAFIA collapsed for lack of evidenceafter ten years , which I
suspect was partly provided by British Intelligence paid organized crime experts from Russia
like Litvenenko & Skripal. Who's been bilked then?
Yes, this is a classic case of 'LOOK OVER THERE!' rather than the billions upon billions
sunk in to London by the UK and the west's bestest Gulf buddies, you know, the one's who fear
not their exposure for outrageous human rights abuses on a genocidal scale such as in Yemen,
and a much smaller scale with the likes of their own citizens, sic Kashoggi. But, Chelsea
& Westminster are such a fundamental part of British Life (coz its London, innit?) and
does very well for itself. I have to admit, it is (mostly) nice around there where you can
take a stroll along the Embankment, wander around Hyde Park and visit the museums.
"Like in the Wild West, betting in the saloon is also common when it comes to Syria. The US
State Department under Obama placed all its bets on some entity they invented, which they
liked to call "moderate rebels" (why not "respectable terrorists" or "polite criminals"?).
They lost. Numerous left-wing academics signed on to regime change years ago, and because
they only pretend to be seasoned analysts for their day jobs, they did not foresee the
collapse of the anti-government forces in Syria. That list included noted "post-colonial"
scholars and anthropologists, united in their belief in "democracy promotion" and remaking
Syria into something palatable to them, with the right leaders in place. Five years later and
a smaller group -- including feminists like Gloria Steinem and Judith Butler, anarchists like
Noam Chomsky and the anthropologist David Graeber, the Marxist David Harvey, and advocates of
recolonization like Michael Walzer -- placed their bets on socialist Kurdish militias,
presumably increasing the value of their bet by the important sign value of their brand name
authority. Ironically, in the process of reimagining legendary Rojava as the site of a second
Spanish Civil War, they were openly collaborating with Donald Trump (not naming him directly,
since "the US government" was more convenient). These signatories were thus complicit with
the very same commander-in-chief of the armed forces they were calling on for support of
Syrian Kurds. They wanted "the US government," whose President is Donald Trump, to impose
sanctions on Turkey, and to develop a foreign policy that put Kurdish interests at the
forefront. You can be sure that, elsewhere, in front of different crowds, they return to "the
Resistance" by puffing up their little chests and sounding all "anti-Trump" -- but when it
came to cheering their favourite band of ethnic anarchists, they could dispense with
appearances. Less "prestigious" characters, publishing in a less "prestigious" outlet,
countered the call to "defend Rojava", a call which appropriated "progressive" politics for
the cause of imperialism (thus reigniting an old marriage). (David Harvey, by the way, having
cashed in on abundant sales of his volume, The New Imperialism, has recently changed his
mind: he has decided that imperialism is merely a metaphor, "rather than anything real". Out
of curiosity, we have to wonder if "capitalism" is also a metaphor, rather than anything
real, seeing how Marxists have linked capitalism with imperialism. Perhaps even socialism is
a metaphor, rather than anything real."
This Canadian has a lot to say well worth reading!!!!!
"... Trump has succeeded in implementing some of his campaign ideas and not all of them are 100% evil or wrongheaded. He has shaken the long term calcification of the US foreign and trade policy, has introduced tariffs especially to combat clearly unfair Chinese trade practices while demanding European and Asian allies pay more for their defense of empire. ..."
"... As b stated recently, Trump is an astute salesman (unfortunately, that is all he is) but what is left unmentioned is that he is of the sales school that is totally unmoored for any sense of ethical, moral or legal responsibility. ..."
"... The US political system was invested with an ability to self-correct, or self-police through separation of powers within the tripartite political system. It is hardly news this system is about dead, starting not with Trump of course, but now reaching its absolute low point under his rule and the acquiescence of the spineless GOP. ..."
That is, he started off on the wrong foot. Campaigning as a populist who eschewed accepted
mainstream "progressive" and "conservative" political positions, he completely cratered the
unpopular Republican orthodoxy during the 2016 primaries by promising such heretical ideas as
a non-interventionist foreign policy, protection for Medicare/Medicaid and social security,
improvement on Obamacare, higher taxes on the wealthiest and a massive infrastructure program
to rebuild the decaying facilities of this so-called once grate nation.
These are all ideas that gained the support of enough Obama voters and independents in
just the right flyover states to lead Trump to an improbable victory while being soundly
thrashed in the popular voting nationwide. A stunning, historical accomplishment as much as
and as much in reaction too, the 2008 Obama victory.
Of course, to those of us who understand the modern GOP and the history of the lying-ass
self promotion of the Trump entertainment spectacle its own self, we were neither duped nor
surprised when the initial 2017 legislative agenda items proferred were none of the populist
agenda but instead were the repeal of Obamacare, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and the
reversal of all Obama executive orders, most notably in the areas of refugee resettlement and
immigration.
Trump, the so-called change agent who in fact was and still is clueless regarding how to
function as President simply let the craven Obama opposition leaders of the prior 8 years,
McConnell and Ryan set out the typical GOP legislative agenda, which is opposed by a
majority, in some cases overwhelming majority, of Amerikkkans.
Obamacare repeal failed memorably based on but one late night thumb's down taken more out
of personal revenge than the ideology of a very soon to be dead Senator.
Trump's ruling style in large part has substituted for any sense of a coherent agenda in
that he obviously cares only about his base (an obdurate block of 36% of the electorate
consisting almost entirely of white, entitled, racist baby boomers who have devolved into
anti-democratic fascists now that they no longer represent a majority of the US population
and believe (falsely) they have something to protect).
Trump has succeeded in implementing some of his campaign ideas and not all of them are
100% evil or wrongheaded. He has shaken the long term calcification of the US foreign and
trade policy, has introduced tariffs especially to combat clearly unfair Chinese trade
practices while demanding European and Asian allies pay more for their defense of
empire.
While I have my own view of whether any of Trump's policies contain great value from a
long term historical perspective, I do recognize Trump's appeal to certain sectors of the
internet, including most obviously certain useful idiots of the ultra left.
I do not believe his victory to be a fluke of nature but rather in keeping with the
current worldwide trend borne of aging whitebread fear, cyncism and disenchantment with
elitist political/economic establishments and which has been amped to a viral degree by a
staggering wealth disparity, but only as it impacts the formerly entitled feeling, aging
white people situated in western countries.
The natural response to any socially or cultural threat is to band together tribally and
fight back. And the main threat, when it is boiled down, is the fear of overpopulation (and
its accompnaying unstoppable environmental degradation) driven by what is viewed
through the Trump voter political lens as non-white, primitive, illsuited people from
shithole countries who are and will continue to ruin Amerikkka and Western Europe.
As perfectly illustrated by the migrant caravan heading to Tijuana.
Unfortunately, Trump through disinterest or incompetence or both hasn't followed through
either with enough of the promises he made that are actually meaningful to most people,
whether GOP or Democratic. He has been able to bind his tribe to him and conquer the GOP
political apparatus simply because the Party platform was already so badly decayed
(overcooked Reagan leftovers) and out of touch with reality pre-Trump that the Donald could
bend delusional conservative tropes in any way he saw fit to his electoral advantage. As long
as he infotained well, and he has indeed, he would dominate.
As b stated recently, Trump is an astute salesman (unfortunately, that is all he is)
but what is left unmentioned is that he is of the sales school that is totally unmoored for
any sense of ethical, moral or legal responsibility.
In other words, Trump is that quintessential Amerikkkan salesman: the grifter. This
particular breed of business person is not an exception in the US but rather the rule. In
fact, the US system has devolved to the point where laws and regulations now enfranchise what
previously had been considered illegal activity. Amerikkkans are heavily incentivised these
days by the call to a form of monopolistic, crony capitalism and institulionised rigged
gambling ("Wall Street"), which in more quaint times was considered mobsterism.
Institutions have been purposefully compromised so they no longer support whatever
criminal laws still exist. It is not by accident that the IRS is now chronically understaffed
and has no effective way to stop income tax cheating or collection of the minimal taxes now
due.
It is not by accident that Trump's main role as President is to weaken institutions such
as the media, to further debase language and kill whatever generally accepted objective truth
remain extant in the land. He is recognisable to all Amerikkkans as a CEO in support of this
ongoing wave of legal criminality through which the 1% and their lackeys section have
prospered at the expense of the 99%.
The US political system was invested with an ability to self-correct, or self-police
through separation of powers within the tripartite political system. It is hardly news this
system is about dead, starting not with Trump of course, but now reaching its absolute low
point under his rule and the acquiescence of the spineless GOP.
And no, I don't believe the Demotardic Party to be absolved of blame in any way. Rather,
the Demotards have entirely gone along to get along with this same trend because of course
the Party leaders have been able to criminally enrich themselves and their cronies along the
way too.
However, let's be real for minute and drop all pretense of holier than thou keyboard
revolutionism. The ultimate solution of the world's disease is not going to be resolved in
2018 through a political revolution, especially one inspired by the disharmony and fraud of
internet based social media and its acolytes. D'uh.
Look around. Since we have been blogging our lives away the world has only grown further
away from leftism. We live in a fascist police state owned and operated by teh ultra wealthy
who have dropped pretense of any humanitarian or religious concern for those less firtunated
than themselves.
Donald Trump has one more chance to make himself truly into the transformational leader he
believes himself to be in his degraded soul.
The first bill on the 2019 legislative needs to be a bipartisan infrastructure bill of
such scope and magnitude that it will serve not only a political change of direction but also
redirect the economy in such way that wealth is re-directed from the wealthy to the rest of
us, particularly those able bodied non-college educated people who have suffered through the
last several decades without hope or gain.
Trump must dictate to his party that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security will not only
be maintained but strengthened through improved benefits.
Am I dreaming? Yes, I admit that I am. But I'm also calling out to the criminal conman in
chief: it's not too late to reclaim your own legacy.
State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert was offered the position of United States
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Fox News chief White House correspondent John Roberts shared the emerging report on Twitter,
writing: "Senior Administration Official tells Fox News that @statedeptspox Heather Nauert
has been offered the job of UN Ambassador."
Nauert, a former Fox News journalist, will replace current U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley,
who abruptly announced in early October that she will exit the administration at the end of
the year.
//Trump really is a clown – appointing yet another person, who will just read
prepared scripts. //
Speaking of Ukraine, the Russian sanctions against Ukraine have been announced. Predictably,
Poroshenko considers them to be 'an award', or so he says. I don't know why he feels
qualified to speak for those so honoured, since he was not on the list.
Trade between Russia and Ukraine hit a low of $10.26 Billion in 2016, but struggled back
up to $12.9 Billion last year. Mind you, pre-glorious-Maidan it was more than $50 Billion
annually. Never mind; I'm sure Yurrup will pick up the slack, just like it did after the
glorious Maidan. Amazingly, the New York Times is still referring to Poroshenko as a
'chocolate tycoon', in the same sentence in which it calls Viktor Pinchuk an oligarch.
State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert was offered the position of United States
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Fox News chief White House correspondent John Roberts shared the emerging report on Twitter,
writing: "Senior Administration Official tells Fox News that @statedeptspox Heather Nauert
has been offered the job of UN Ambassador."
Nauert, a former Fox News journalist, will replace current U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley,
who abruptly announced in early October that she will exit the administration at the end of
the year.
//Trump really is a clown – appointing yet another person, who will just read
prepared scripts. //
"... The key point from my POV was the immediate MSM blanket coverage with every detail explained. No investigation, research, doubts or questions. ..."
"... The US MSM is a propaganda tool and they were pre-prepared, so some US deep state group knew that Bin Salman's bodyguard was heading to the consulate and what they planned to do there (and maybe even set them up to do it). ..."
The Saudis also support the system of petrodollars, which basically requires nearly all
international purchases of petroleum to be paid in dollars. Petrodollars in turn enable the
United States to print money for which there is no backing knowing that there will always be
international demand for dollars to buy oil.
I would emphasize this aspect, except that MbS doesn't so much support the PetroDollar as
the PetroYuan, and this is more than troubling for the US since the PetroDollar is essential to
the dollar's world reserve currency status.
Many American economists have expressed alarm at Saudi Arabia's willingness to borrow in
Chinese yuan, as Riyadh's decision could cause other oil-exporting countries to abandon the
U.S. dollar in favor of the "petro-yuan." A marked decline in the use of the U.S. dollar as
the preferred credit-issuing currency by oil-producing countries would greatly weaken the
U.S. dollar's long-term viability as a global reserve currency.
As the United States views its alliance with Saudi Arabia as the lynchpin of its Middle
East strategy, Washington will likely react strongly if Riyadh uses its influence within OPEC
to strengthen the Chinese yuan. As Saudi Arabia remains dependent on U.S. arms sales to
pursue its geopolitical objectives in the Middle East and counter Iran, intense U.S. pressure
would likely cause Riyadh to distance itself from Beijing, limiting economic integration
between the two countries.
It is no coincidence that these statements from the Crown Prince come days after the
official launch of China's Petroyuan. As every historical trend indicates, the world's most
powerful economy dictates which currency will be used in most international transactions.
This continues to be the case with the US in respect of Dollar, but as China gets set to
fully overtake the US as the world's leading economy, the Dollar will inevitably be replaced
by the Yuan.
China's issuing of oil futures contracts in Petroyuan is the clearest indication yet that
China is keen to make its presence as the world's largest energy consumer known and that it
would clearly prefer to purchase oil from countries like Saudi Arabia in its own currency in
the future, quite possibly in the near future.
Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince appears to understand this trajectory in the global energy
markets and furthermore, he realises that in order to be able to leverage the tremendous
amount of US pressure that will come down on Riaydh in order to force Saudi Arbia to avoid
the Petroyuan, Riyadh will need to embrace other potential partners, including China.
More than anything else, the Petroyuan will have an ability to transform Saudi Arabia by
limiting its negative international characteristics that Muhammad bin Salman himself
described. As a pseudo-satellite state of the US during the Cold War, Muhammad bin Salman
admitted that his country's relationship to the US was that of subservience. China does not
make political let alone geopolitical demands of its partners, but China is nevertheless keen
to foster de-escalations in tensions among all its partners based on the win-win principles
of peace through prosperity as articulated on a regular basis by President Xi Jinping.
Thus one could see China's policies of political non-interference rub off on a potential
future Saudi partner, in the inverse way that the US policies of ultra-interventionism are
often forced upon its partners. Thus, whatever ideological views Muhammad bin Salman does or
does not have, he clearly knows where the wind is blowing: in the direction of China.
If the Khashoggi Affair was planned as a warning to Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman, then
the US knew exactly what was going to happen in the consulate. It was coupled with an immediate
and orchestrated MSM reaction that was curiously detailed, and delivered at high volume.
Yeah, the US will never get rid of the Saudi regime but will always be dangling the sword
right above their necks, and not just figuratively.
Besides the tangible benefits of the 'strategic' control of oil resources, which the US
believes it needs to control in order to dominate Western Europe and its Asian allies, the
Saudis also function as the CIA's private slush fund for off-the-books operations like
Iran-Contra and many others which surface in the news from time to time. Thus, the CIA
controls such vast sums through the Saudis as to make their budgets effectively
limitless.
During his triumphant tour of the US earlier this year, the Saudi King said something
which I found shocking and incredibly revealing in the way the story dropped like a stone
making absolutely no ripples anywhere in the MSM, nor in the alternative media for that
matter.
When asked about Saudi funding of Wahhabism around the world, he said that 'the allies
(presumably US and UK) had 'asked' the Saudis to 'use their resources' to create the
Madrassas and Wahhabi centers to prevent prevent inroads in Muslim countries by the Soviets
(a premise which is very questionable in the ME context after the fall of Nasser).
Now that seems to be the story of the century because it reveals the operating method of
the CIA wrt the Saudis. And even though MBS was trying to only reveal the distant roots of
the system they put in place, there is absolutely no logical reason why any part of this
system would have been subsequently dismantled; 911 notwithstanding. The continuing
US/Israeli support for and generous use of jihadis in Libya, Syria, etc. only reinforces this
point.
This is ultimately the greatest impediment to anything changing the status quo.
If the consulate was bugged , the Turks must have known the plan to abduct kashooggi.
They let it happen, and now that the abduction turned into a murder, they are accomplice.
US knew exactly what was going to happen in the consulate.
I doubt the US knew "exactly", but they likely knew something bad (a kidnapping
perhaps?) was a strong probability. Alas I wish Khashoggi had been warned. Too it seems
very odd he was willing to set foot in a Saudi embassy anywhere? Maybe Director Haspel can
explain.
Supposedly Khashoggi's smart phone picked it all up and filmed his own murder ??
More likely the room was prepared, and Khashoggi was following US instructions/assurances
in going there. The key point from my POV was the immediate MSM blanket coverage with
every detail explained. No investigation, research, doubts or questions.
The US MSM is a propaganda tool and they were pre-prepared, so some US deep state
group knew that Bin Salman's bodyguard was heading to the consulate and what they planned to
do there (and maybe even set them up to do it).
One question is whether the Halloween show was aimed at removing Bin Salman or just
getting him back in line.
Sibel Edmonds has been following this story from Turkey (she speaks Turkish) and posting her
thoughts and findings on twitter. She seems to think this is about some kind of soft coup
(get rid of MBS b/c getting too cozy with Russia/China, Euroasia). Sibel also says Khashoggi
was actually in Istanbul working with some kind of Soros NGO, maybe for future Color
Revolution/Arab Spring in the Middle East.
Sibel Edmonds @sibeledmonds As Predicted (OnRecord) One Of 3 Objectives in #Scripted
#Khashoggi Case: Get #Trump- Replace BS #RussiaGate with #SaudiGate. (Screenshot Coming In
Reply)- – "Khashoggi fiancee hits at Trump response, warns of 'money' influence"
Sibel Edmonds @sibeledmonds Oct 27
Very Important #Khashoggi Continued: #Khashoggi Relocated To #Turkey To Be a Part of a
Business-ThinkTank-NGO. He set up a business here. He opened Bank Accounts. He bought a
house/expansive Flat. He traveled to #London from #Istanbul paid handsomely by #Neoliberal
#DeepState
Jamal Khashoggi did not die for nothing. His murder was part of the plot to push current
de-facto ruler of the Saudi royal crime family aside.
On the moral side, considering who Khashoggi was, one can only say "serves him right".
However, all the other players involved, the Saudis, Israel, Turkey, and the US, are by no
means morally superior to him. His murder and essential non-reaction by others are useful, as
these events unmasked the hypocrites, who are showing their true colors even as we speak.
Should have added that the Kashoggi murder & extremely strange aftermath, dulled US
political response, smacks of a scene from the film "V for Vendetta."
"There is every indication that the U.S. is not in fact seeking to punish the Saudis for
their alleged role in Khashoggi's apparent murder but instead to punish them for reneging on
this $15 billion deal to U.S. weapons giant Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the THAAD
system.
S-400 gamechanger. / Saudi Plan to Purchase Russian S-400:
@Colin
Wright Thanks for the link. Now we can see that Empire had previously turned against MbS,
and that the scripted Khashoggi affair conveniently arrived on cue – with MbS getting
the full MSM treatment.
In other words the deep state knew exactly what was going to happen in the consulate that
day, set it up and recorded it themselves (nothing to do with Khashoggi's smart phone).
Prince Ahmad bin Abdulaziz, the younger brother of King Salman, has returned to Saudi
Arabia after a prolonged absence in London, to mount a challenge to Crown Prince Mohammed
bin Salman or find someone who can.
The source said that the prince returned "after discussion with US and UK officials",
who assured him they would not let him be harmed and encouraged him to play the role of
usurper.
Meanwhile, in Washington disquiet grows.
Writing in the New York Times, former national security advisor to the Obama
administration and US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said: "Looking ahead, Washington must
act to mitigate the risks to our own interests. We should not rupture our important
relationship with the kingdom, but we must make clear it cannot be business as usual so
long as Prince Mohammed continues to wield unlimited power.
"It should be United States policy, in conjunction with our allies, to sideline the
crown prince in order to increase pressure on the royal family to find a steadier
replacement," she added.
@Miro23
The mainstream narrative has had "Psyop" written all over it from the first. It wouldn't
surprise me to learn that Khashoggi is still alive and languishing in an undisclosed location
with only the Skripals for company.
@Bill
Jones An interesting bullet-sentence, Bill Jones said to me: "The strange and dulled
aftermath in the US is, I believe, because the lesson was not really meant for US audiences."
Greetings, Bill!
Lessons on dramatic world events are cunningly spun to insouciant &
government-trusting Americans. The weird Jamal Kashoggi murder is an excellent example among
hundreds to choose from!
Fyi, along with FDR administration's cooperation, Zionists helped gin-up war fervor in
order to get the US into World War 2. Such deception resulted in unnecessarily sending-off
another round of American "doughboys" into world war.
Fyr, as recovered from America's Memory Hole Knowledge Disposal / Sewer System," below is
a great Pat Buchanan article titled, "Who forged it?"
Now, this works much better if your disturbed individual is actually obsessed with something
political, like, say, if he's a Donald Trump fanatic who has plastered the windows of the van
he's living in with all sorts of blatantly psychotic artwork deifying Donald Trump and
demonizing Donald Trump's political opponents, but you'll have to work with what your lunatic
gives you. In any event, whatever his pathology, you will need to de-pathologize your psycho,
so you can misrepresent him as a "domestic terrorist," and then associate whatever "ideology"
you've just painted onto him with "terrorism."
If that sounds a little complicated, don't worry, folks, it's really not! The ruling classes
and the corporate media just provided us with a demonstration of the
Putin-Nazi-Terrorist-O-Matic in action, which proves how easy-to-use it is. In the span of just
a single week, they whipped up so much mass paranoia that
These Putin-Nazi Terrorist "bomb-like devices" were "intercepted" throughout last week.
Their targets were a roll call of Resistance heroes, Soros, Obama, Hillary Clinton, John
Brennan, the offices of CNN, Eric Holder, Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, and, yes, even Robert De
Niro! Putin-Nazi panic paralyzed the nation! The neoliberal corporate media (who, remember, are
serious, respected professionals, not conspiracist nuts like Alex Jones) began pouring out
pieces informing the world that Donald Trump was behind these attacks, or had encouraged,
"emboldened," or "inspired" whoever was with
his violent, neo-Hitlerian rhetoric .
So far I haven't heard exactly what the chemical make-up of these "pipe bombs" is none of
which detonated or even initiated a detonation sequence. No doubt the authorities will get
around to this trifling little fact in their own good time (ie when it has best propaganda
affect)
The problem with the angriest whites who want change is that they don't have any F@CKING
money.
Even if the Left did not have the money to suppress the Alt-Right like Gavin, they have
the money for better production values. More people will watch Oprah than the Alt-Right. They
can get more air time. Hollywood will spend more money. They always have more
Our White Nationalist leaders are not billionaires. Tommy Morrison is not a self-made
millionaire. Richard Spencer the same.
These are average whites you meet in the street.
Tech billionaires, media moguls and globalists are all much more wealthy. They are not
white proles with few contacts in the business or media world who are out with the other
squirming proles on the street.
The problem with the angriest whites who want change is that they don't have any F@CKING
money.
Even if the Left did not have the money to suppress the Alt-Right like Gavin, they have
the money for better production values. More people will watch Oprah than the Alt-Right. They
can get more air time. Hollywood will spend more money. They always have more
Our White Nationalist leaders are not billionaires. Tommy Morrison is not a self-made
millionaire. Richard Spencer the same.
These are average whites you meet in the street.
Tech billionaires, media moguls and globalists are all much more wealthy. They are not
white proles with few contacts in the business or media world who are out with the other
squirming proles on the street.
Good piece, though I miss the historical dimension. The described mechanism seems to me to
have been taken right out of the Goebbels manual, or if you like the Comintern manual. Which
were in turn inspired by the instructions of people like Edward Bernays.
What strikes me is that the US empire and its faithful servants are resorting to
old-fashioned and imported (stolen, "un-American") techniques to try and maintain their hold
on public opinion. I guess, here the economic benefits of the systematic dismantling of the
educational system all over the "West" are paying off! Which just proves the advantages of
stubbornly concentrating publc spending on armaments instead of education: it has a side
effect of making people so stupid they believe just anything.
Still, I wonder how it will be possible to keep repeating the old fairytale of why it was
necessary to fight the evil Nazis. If outright Nazism is what the US empire is all about, why
did they bother about fighting Hitler?
Probably because he was not "American." Or was it because the original Nazis spent quite a
bit on education?
I suspect Cesar Sayoc is a straight up patsy. As Mr Hopkins points out, none of the
bombs(sic) had an earthly chance of exploding. Mr Sayoc was discovered due to DNA evidence no
doubt left on the beer cans he made the bombs out of. Its straight out of the Anthrax post
9/11 playbook but fortunately without deadly consequences. How the dumb American Sheeple
(apart from most Unz.com readers of course) can't see it is beyond me.
In terms of lone nut being the harbinger of domestic terrorism we had this in the UK with
the Jo Cox case in 2016, where the mentally ill individual ( who I strongly suspect was
controlled by the Deep State) was hustled off to the Old Bailey accused of being a white
supremacist Brexit supporting terrorist and convicted in 3 days flat. No explanation of where
he actually acquired his gun, why for such a racist he didnt harm Cox's Asian assistant even
when she hit him with a handbag etc etc
Robert D Bowers is of course a homicidal maniac, Trump hater and gift horse to the ADL who
have their first real anti- semitism case in decades. Makes a change from blacks or policemen
shouting 'oy vey' or some other gross obscenity at Brooklyn Jews
@Hans
Vogel Absolutely agree the dumbing down of education especially the absence of any
critical thinking despite the presence of so called civics or citizenship on the curriculum
is crucial to the success of the propaganda effort
No society can manage all of its fringe lunatics all of the time. So when one occasionally
goes off rails ("postal" as they used to say) the ideologues who manage the propaganda
outlets know that pointing to the obvious reality of the event doesn't advance the agenda.
And, luckily for them there is always a handy abstraction, a scary "ism" or "obia" to hang on
the event and smear a whole bunch of folks whose manners they disapprove of.
Neoliberal Multicultural Globalist Capitalism is the new Marxism. Its true believers have
learned from the failures of Marxists to rule the world forever, forcing the deplorable white
trash to accept being cogs for ideological good, how to get the job done.
Whats more concerning is something stormy daniels said about trump ..that he is out of his
depth.she might have ulterior motives but it somehow rings true.Combine that with sayoc and
bowers types and one has to wonder how many more are there out there just waiting to make
america great again
" news is just coming in from Guardian columnist Christina Patterson that Jeremy Corbyn and
the Labour Party are also responsible for the Pittsburgh attack, "
I wonder if it is known that Soros owns the Guardian, so that, I fear, to the list CNN,
Washpost and NYT, Guardian can be added.
As I wrote here just a few hours ago, I wondered why there was no political follow up on the
Pittsburgh massacre.
But possibly this is it.
Cynics like me, who understand Pearl Harbour, Liberty, possibly Kennedy and Diana, certainly
Sept 11, now wonder 'who did it ?', and 'why were just ten jews killed ?'.
Automatic weapons are freely available in the USA, what a few Muslims can do in Paris should
be quite easy in the USA.
It is common practice with political murders to kill the murderer, such as Lee Harvey Oswald,
dead men cannot talk.
But after the murder of Anna Lyndh it seems possible that better ways have been found to hide
political murders.
@Hans
Vogel If Hitler was the problem, why was not Germany beaten in 1938, when both the Chech
and the Polish armies still existed ?
Attacked by Poland, Chechoslovakia, Britain and France, possibly the USSR too, Hitler Germany
would have been beaten in a few weeks, historians agree on this.
Historians debating this question agree on the only possible solution: that Roosevelt wanted
a long war, in which the USA would be the victor.
Dividing up Germany somehow between the mentioned four or five countries would bring the USA
nothing.
These false flags are a part of the deep states efforts to keep the American people in a
state of terror and hysteria to accept more and more government control over our lives and as
long as the people accept these acts at face value without doing any checking on the facts ,
the deep state will have succeeded.
" as if your wack job was actually a rational person and not just a totally paranoid geek who
decided to attempt to assassinate Reagan because he couldn't get a date with Jodie Foster ."
Whats more concerning is something stormy daniels said about trump ..that he is out of
his depth.she might have ulterior motives but it somehow rings true.
its true, he's probably nowhere as intelligent as obozo but somehow he gets by
stormy sounds like an expert, maybe she can judge a man's IQ by the taste of his sperm
May 4, 2017 False Flag Exposed Caught Red Handed and Prevented
In this video, we give you the latest news of a false flag that has been prevented in
Germany, the historical context of false flags, and importance in current politics.
May 07, 2014 The Oldest Trick In the Book: Empire Pretends It Has to Launch Wars to
"Defend" Itself
Empires – almost by definition – fight imperial wars to gain land and
resources. But if they admitted to their citizens what they were up to, people wouldn't be
that excited in sacrificing their families' blood and treasure to fight a series of wars.
@jilles
dykstra World War 2 may have continued indefinitely had not Russia been preparing to
invade Japan, thus forcing the United States into dropping the bombs.
Anyone assuming the Jewish-controlled Deep State would have any qualms about killing a few
Jewish senior citizens to assure the revolution continues, are badly mistaken.
@Carroll
Price FORCED to drop nuclear bombs? There is always a choice, even for a rogue state like
the US. (Rather, a state, inhabited by many decent, trusting people, but run by ruthless
criminals such as FDR, the Bushes, Obomba and the like). Besides, in early 1945 FDR received
a detailed report by one of his generals to the effect that Japan was ready to surrender. Yet
FDR, may he burn in hell, decided to ignore this and continue bombing Japanese cities: in
March of 1945, Tokyo was bombed, and over 100.000 Japanese civilians were murdered. The
Soviet Union had promised to join in the final assault on Japan, doing FDR a favor because he
did not want to go it alone.
People who never resort to 'foul' language are either dead inside, or are scheming
scumbags trying to get one over on the crowd.
No one is in a position to determine whether "People never resort "
In the early 80s, I was at a social function where foul language use was part of the
general conversation. A woman in her mid to late 40s who was sitting at the table rebuked us
gently by stating that our profanities were a poor excuse for a bad vocabulary. There is a
time and place for profanity, spouting off profanely at a political opponent in a public
place does nothing for credibility.
As for calling a fig a fig, I seldom use the word cunt for the simple reason that a cunt
has a use , while those who are often called cunts, don't.
I am immediately suspicious about anyone whose 'authority' includes a costume –
judges, pigs, TSA etc; likewise, anyone who relies on 'gravitas' or presentation
(politicians, senior bureaucrats, diplomats, marketing shitheads).
If every one of those people were put to the sword by people screaming "FUCK YOU" at the
top of their lungs, humanity would be better off.
I enjoyed your comment.
and agree wholeheartedly
(except for including 'pigs' with your litany of scoundrels. It's not fair to the
inoffensive four-legged kind ; )
@anon Nice
try. But, first of all, learn to write simply. Like the man said, all those words don't fit
on a phone.
Secondly, you are absolutely right. ID politics is what our owners want. They want us to
fight over who is oppressing whom. So it don't matter if you are pro-white or anti-white,
pro-racism or anti, you are doing our master's bidding.
The only answer is blacks and whites and homosexuals and heterosexuals and women and men
etc etc, all together, all as one, screaming, "Mo money mo money mo money mo money." But that
won't happen because they find it easier to shame each other over meaningless nonsense like
race and sex and other ridiculous identities.
To be a dissident in the 1960′s meant that one objected to the standard narrative of
White-European greatness and blamelessness for conquering much of the world. Today it means
just the opposite. The roles have reversed. Not only are Europeans not viewed as great but
they are blamed for everything that is wrong anywhere, anytime. To be a dissident is to
insist that Europeans aren't quite so bad as they are currently portrayed.
I never thought I'd say this but if Nixon were alive today he would appear as the very
soul of rationality and a bastion of sanity compared to the current crop of rat-faced,
unprincipled traitors who dominate the news. At least Nixon had the integrity to not sell out
his country to an alien tribe of sleazy money changers, usurers and unpatriotic off-shore
operators.
At one point in his life, Hunter Thompson thought things couldn't get any worse than
Tricky Dick. Little did he suspect. It's likely that Thompson, at some point before he pulled
the trigger, came to the belated realization that, compared to the debased venality of our
present leaders, Nixon was an honorable man, a lover of his country and a loyal patriot.
Watergate was a misdemeanor B & E compared to the rape and genocide of whites that is
taking place today.
@Hans
Vogel 'The English' in WII did not exist.
Many sympathized with Hitler
Ian Kershaw, ´Hitlers Freunde in England, Lord Londonderry und der Weg in den Krieg',
(Making Friends with Hitler. Lord Londonderry and Britain's Road to War, 2004, London),
München 2005
The Marquess of Londonderry, ´England blickt auf Deutschland, Um die deutsch-englische
Verständigung, Essen 1938 (Ourselves and Germany, 1938)
Churchill loved war, he refused all Hitler's attempts at peace.
There seems to be a book Churchill's Toy Shop, did not read it, Churchill's personal weapons
gadget development facility.
In this he was supported by his scientific advisor Lindemann
C.P.Snow, ´Science and government', 1961, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, 'Double standards, The Rudolf Hess cover-up',
London 2002
Günther W.Gellermann, 'Geheime Wege zum Frieden mit England , Ausgewählte
Initiativen zur Beëndigung des Krieges 1940/1942', Bonn 1995
Stürmer, Teichmann, Treue 'Striking the Balance Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie. A family
and a Bank', London 1994
Thomas E. Mahl, 'Desperate deception, British covert operations in the United States
1939-44', Dulles, Virginia, 1998
However, in Casablanca Churchill found out he was at the mercy of FDR
Francois Kersaudy, ´De Gaulle et Roosevelt, Le duel au sommet', Paris, 2004
If Churchill ever realised that LendLease was the end of the British empire, I wonder
R.F. Harrod, 'THE PROF, A personal memoir of Lord Cherwell', London, 1959
John Charmley,'Churchill's Grand Alliance, A provocative reassessment of the "Special
relationship" between England and the U.S. from 1940 to 1957', 1995, London
John Charmley, 'Der Untergang des Britischen Empires, Roosevelt – Churchill und
Amerikas Weg zur Weltmacht', Graz 2005
But the two essential books explaining why Chamberlain steered towards war, without wanting
war:
Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity
of British Foreign Policy', 1976, Oxford
The genocidal folly of bombing German women, children and old men:
Solly Zuckermann, 'From Apes to Warlords, an autobiography, 1904- 46', London 1988
Even the official post WWII British report on the bombing of Germany concluded that the
damage to GB was equal to German damage, British damage defined as building and maintaining
bombers, producing bombs, and, last but not in the least least, losing a whole generation of
Britain's promising young men
Peter H. Nicoll, ´Englands Krieg gegen Deutschland, Ursachen, Methoden und Folgen des
Zweiten Weltkriegs', 1963, 2001, Tübingen ( Britain's Blunder, 1953)
This last book also contains a calculation of how WWII impoverished the USA.
@Hans
Vogel said:
"The described mechanism seems to me to have been taken right out of the Goebbels manual "
Oh really? What "manual" was that? Your indoctrination is showing.
Pie drops the ball when he talks about 'the Nazis' & the Battle of Britain, which was
a result of British initiation of bombing purely civilian targets.
The New York Times explained how Trump was employing a strategy called "stochastic
terrorism," i.e., inspiring random acts of violence that are statistically predictable but
individually unpredictable!
Wow. Quasi-treasonous scumbaggery from the dominant press outlets has become so common, it
rarely registers on me anymore. But this is an unusually detestable example.
But that won't happen because they find it easier to shame each other over
meaningless nonsense like race and sex and other ridiculous identities.
if this was true there would be no problem allowing hundreds of millions of africans into
Europe, the U.S. etc but sub-saharan africans have IQs as low as 70 and have never built
anything of substance in their existence
they have nothing to contribute except violence and crime
@jilles
dykstra Thanks for your bibliographical suggestions!
As for the English, I prefer this to the awkward term "British." (see also AJP Taylor's
introduction to his English History, 1914-1945 ). As long as the English and English
speakers usually refer to the Netherlands as "Holland," and US people call their country
"America" and themselves "Americans," why should we not say English instead of British?" The
English better get used to foreign usage, as have the Greeks ("Hellenes") and Hungarians
("Magyars").
Btw, the translator of Nicoll's book on your list agrees with me: he calls Britain
"England!"
@wayfarer
Here is a video that Ron Unz should feature of a truly honest and great young American Jewish
activist: Jeremy Rothe-Kushel and Greg McCarren of The Anecdote speak about
this Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting:
Gee; that's sort of true – the politicians pick the wars the Army fights. The
implication of that statement is that America always goes reluctantly into battle, after
exhausting every attempt to reach a peaceful solution. The reality is much different, and the
United States has never fought a war of self-defense, not once, unless you count the Civil
War, which was an all-American effort with no foreign enemy. It has always been the attacker,
in one context or another, and if the Army is gearing up for a major war in Europe, that's
because that's the war the politicians are planning to have the Army fight. The last time I
looked, the United States was not in Europe. But that's the attraction of a European war
– it represents a chance to turn back the clock, and to reposition the USA as the
world's dominant leader and sole superpower, before greed and manipulation and wedge issues
and gender-politics distractions and the gradual corruption of the political class brought it
to the sorry state of debauchery in which it now finds itself. Unfortunately Europe will have
to experience a considerable degree of damage, as the host, but the Europeans have always
been pretty good about taking one for the team. The important thing is that America will be
untouched and totally committed to the rebuilding of Europe just like the last time.
Well, don't count on it. There were no ICBM's in the last war, and it's considerably
easier, these days, to reach out and slap the fuck out of the one who is responsible for
starting the whole thing.
Uh oh; Russia enacts sanctions against Ukraine which will, among other things, prohibit
transferring money from Russian to Ukrainian banks. There will still be ways for Ukrainian
workers in Russia to get their pay home to relatives in Ukraine, but it just got the official
Russian stamp of disapproval and it is going to be made more difficult.
There will also be embargoes against certain Ukrainian products (maybe it spells it out, I
didn't watch the whole thing yet).
Plenty of good stuff at the link including what we have read before.
The article leads me to this question: If whomever can fabricate Syrian Army messages,
isn't there one small problem with it? I.e. The Brits may be hoovering up SIGNIT from Mount
Troodos in Cyprus, but unless the radio signals are highly directional (and even then they
emanate outwards), other nations are also recording these signals, such as Russia,
which we never hear about.
Therefore, the Brits/8200 whomever must assume that the Russians have copies and would
know if the former are putting up the bs and can call it out behind closed doors at the UN to
other nations. So what's the point? Simply for building media outrage and DO
SOMETHING! momentum, hoping to act first before it can be scotched? That's what used to
happen in the past
That's a really good piece, with loads of interesting information. What jumped out for me,
though was what amounts to a professional acknowledgement of something that was introduced by
commenters early on in the Skripal affair – the almost complete absence of CCTV footage
of their movements and those of people close to them. As both sources point out, England is
lousy with CCTV, you can barely move without being picked up on multiple cameras. Therefore
the British must have hours of footage that they have chosen not to reveal. And as the
article concludes, the only logical reason for that is that it does not support the official
narrative, since one has obviously been decided upon and vigorously defended.
As an aside, it is tragic that intelligence is manipulated the way it is to present a
desired conclusion. Because intelligence is supposed to be something like the irrefutable
clue, the piece that doesn't fit, in detective stories. It is supposed to provide that
epiphanous moment when you know what has transpired beyond any reasonable doubt. Every
time that moment is discovered to have been brought about by fabrication and deceit so as to
push an incorrect conclusion to the forefront, trust in the method diminishes. Consequently,
the harder governments push this or that piece of evidence as the conclusive piece of proof
which cannot be denied, the more likely it is to have been manufactured rather than
discovered.
"... Let's face it: profits and power should be classified as perennial reasons why U.S. leaders persist in waging such conflicts. War may be a racket , as General Smedley Butler claimed long ago, but who cares these days since business is booming ? ..."
"... As former New York Times ..."
"... Add in, as well, the issue of political credibility. No president wants to appear weak and in the United States of the last many decades, pulling back from a war has been the definition of weakness. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... A retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and professor of history, Astore is a ..."
"... . His personal blog is ..."
"... You seem to have missed it, but Trump campaigned on an anti-war platform. The real story is how the Deep State/Cabal turned him around, and how irrelevant elections are ..."
As America enters the 18th year of its war in
Afghanistan and its 16th in Iraq, the war on terror continues in Yemen , Syria, and parts of Africa, including
Libya,
Niger , and
Somalia . Meanwhile, the Trump administration threatens yet more war, this time
with Iran . (And given these last years, just how do you imagine that's likely to turn
out?) Honestly, isn't it time Americans gave a little more thought to why their leaders persist
in waging losing wars
across significant parts of the planet? So consider the rest of this piece my attempt to do
just that.
Let's face it: profits and power should be classified as perennial reasons why U.S.
leaders persist in waging such conflicts. War may be a racket , as General Smedley Butler
claimed long ago, but who cares these days since business is booming
? And let's add to such profits a few other all-American motivations. Start with the fact
that, in some curious sense, war is in the American bloodstream.
As former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges once put it , "War
is a force that gives us meaning." Historically, we Americans are a violent people who have
invested much in a self-image of toughness
now being displayed across the " global battlespace ." (Hence
all the talk in this country not about our soldiers but about our " warriors .") As the bumper stickers I see
regularly where I live say: "God, guns, & guts made America free." To make the world freer,
why not export all three?
Add in, as well, the issue of political credibility. No president wants to appear weak
and in the United States of the last many decades, pulling back from a war has been the
definition of weakness. No one -- certainly not Donald Trump -- wants to be known as the
president who "lost" Afghanistan or Iraq. As was true of Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard
Nixon in the Vietnam years, so in this century fear of electoral defeat has helped prolong the
country's hopeless wars. Generals, too, have their own fears of defeat, fears that drive them
to escalate conflicts (call it the urge to surge) and even to advocate for the use of nuclear
weapons, as General William Westmoreland did in 1968
during the Vietnam War.
Washington's own
deeply embedded illusions and deceptions also serve to generate and perpetuate its wars.
Lauding our troops as " freedom fighters " for peace and prosperity,
presidents like George W. Bush have waged a set of brutal wars in the name of spreading
democracy and a better way of life. The trouble is: incessant war doesn't spread democracy --
though in the twenty-first century we've learned that it does spread
terror groups -- it
kills it . At the same time, our leaders, military and civilian, have given us a false picture of the nature of the
wars they're fighting. They continue to present the U.S. military and its vaunted "smart"
weaponry as a precision surgical instrument capable of targeting and destroying the cancer
of terrorism, especially of the radical Islamic variety. Despite the hoopla about them,
however, those precision instruments of war turn out to be blunt indeed , leading to the
widespread killing of innocents, the massive displacement of people across America's war
zones, and floods of refugees who have, in turn, helped spark the rise of the populist right in
lands otherwise still at peace.
Lurking behind the incessant warfare of this century is another belief, particularly
ascendant in the Trump White House: that big militaries and expensive weaponry represent "
investments " in a better future -- as if the Pentagon were the Bank of America or Wall
Street. Steroidal military spending continues to be sold as a key to creating jobs and maintaining America's
competitive edge, as if war were America's primary business. (And perhaps it is!)
Those who facilitate enormous military budgets and frequent conflicts abroad still earn
special praise here. Consider, for example, Senator John McCain's rapturous final sendoff,
including the way arms maker Lockheed Martin
lauded him as an American hero supposedly tough and demanding when it came to military
contractors. (And if you believe that, you'll believe anything.)
Put all of this together and what you're likely to come up with is the American version of
George Orwell's famed formulation in his novel 1984 : "war is peace."
The War the Pentagon Knew How to Win
Twenty years ago, when I was a major on active duty in the U.S. Air Force, a major concern
was the possible corroding of civil-military relations -- in particular, a growing gap between
the military and the civilians who were supposed to control them. I'm a clipper of newspaper
articles and I saved some from that long-gone era. "Sharp divergence found in views of military
and civilians," reported the New York Times in September 1999. "Civilians, military
seen growing apart," noted the Washington Post a month later. Such pieces were picking
up on trends already noted by distinguished military commentators like Thomas Ricks and Richard
Kohn. In July 1997, for instance, Ricks had written an
influentialAtlantic article, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society."
In 1999, Kohn gave a lecture at the Air Force Academy titled
"The Erosion of Civilian Control of the Military in the United States Today."
A generation ago, such commentators worried that the all-volunteer military was becoming an
increasingly conservative and partisan institution filled with generals and admirals
contemptuous of civilians, notably then-President Bill Clinton. At the time, according to
one study ,
64% of military officers identified as Republicans, only 8% as Democrats and, when it came to
the highest levels of command, that figure for Republicans was in the stratosphere, approaching
90%. Kohn quoted a West Point graduate as saying, "We're in danger of developing our own
in-house Soviet-style military, one in which if you're not in 'the party,' you don't get
ahead." In a similar fashion, 67% of military officers self-identified as politically
conservative, only 4% as liberal.
In a 1998
article for the U.S. Naval Institute's Proceedings , Ricks noted that "the ratio
of conservatives to liberals in the military" had gone from "about 4 to 1 in 1976, which is
about where I would expect a culturally conservative, hierarchical institution like the U.S.
military to be, to 23 to 1 in 1996." This "creeping politicization of the officer corps," Ricks
concluded, was creating a less professional military, one in the process of becoming "its own
interest group." That could lead, he cautioned, to an erosion of military effectiveness if
officers were promoted based on their political leanings rather than their combat skills.
How has the civil-military relationship changed in the last two decades? Despite bending on
social issues (gays in the military, women in more combat roles), today's military is arguably
neither more liberal nor less partisan than it was in the Clinton years. It certainly hasn't
returned to its citizen-soldier roots via a draft. Change, if it's come, has been on the
civilian side of the divide as Americans have grown both more militarized and more partisan
(without any greater urge
to sign up and serve). In this century, the civil-military divide of a generation ago has
been bridged by endless
celebrations of that military as "the best of us" (as Vice President Mike Pence recently put
it).
Such expressions, now commonplace, of boundless faith in and
thankfulness for the military are undoubtedly driven in part by guilt over neither serving,
nor undoubtedly even truly caring. Typically, Pence didn't serve and neither did Donald Trump
(those pesky " heel spurs
"). As retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich put it in
2007: "To assuage uneasy consciences, the many who do not serve [in the all-volunteer military]
proclaim their high regard for the few who do. This has vaulted America's fighting men and
women to the top of the nation's moral hierarchy. The character and charisma long ago
associated with the pioneer or the small farmer -- or carried in the 1960s by Dr. King and the
civil-rights movement -- has now come to rest upon the soldier." This elevation of "our" troops
as America's moral heroes feeds a Pentagon imperative that seeks
to isolate the military from criticism and its
commanders from accountability for wars gone
horribly wrong .
Paradoxically, Americans have become both too
detached from their military and too deferential to it. We now love to applaud that
military, which, the pollsters
tell us, enjoys a significantly higher degree of trust and approval from the public than the
presidency, Congress, the media, the Catholic church, or the Supreme Court. What that military
needs, however, in this era of endless war is not loud cheers, but tough love.
As a retired military man, I do think our troops deserve a measure of esteem. There's a
selfless ethic to the military that should seem admirable in this age of selfies and
selfishness. That said, the military does not deserve the deference of the present moment, nor
the constant adulation it gets in endless ceremonies at any ballpark or sporting
arena. Indeed, deference and adulation, the balm of military dictatorships, should be poison to
the military of a democracy.
With U.S. forces endlessly fighting ill-begotten wars, whether in Vietnam in the 1960s or in
Iraq and Afghanistan four decades later, it's easy to lose sight of where the Pentagon
continues to maintain a truly winning record: right here in the U.S.A. Today, whatever's
happening on the country's distant battlefields, the idea that ever more inflated military
spending is an investment in making America great again reigns supreme -- as it has, with
little interruption, since the 1980s and the era of President Ronald Reagan.
The military's purpose should be, as Richard Kohn put it long ago, "to defend society, not
to define it. The latter is militarism." With that in mind, think of the way various retired
military men lined up behind Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016, including a classically
unhinged
performance by retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (he of the "lock her up" chants)
for Trump at the Republican convention and a
shout-out of a speech by retired General John Allen for Clinton at the Democratic one.
America's presidential candidates, it seemed, needed to be anointed by retired generals,
setting a dangerous precedent for future civil-military relations.
A Letter From My Senator
A few months back, I wrote a note to one of my senators to complain about America's endless
wars and received a signed reply via email. I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that it
was a canned response, but no less telling for that. My senator began by praising American
troops as "tough, smart, and courageous, and they make huge sacrifices to keep our families
safe. We owe them all a true debt of gratitude for their service." OK, I got an instant warm
and fuzzy feeling, but seeking applause wasn't exactly the purpose of my note.
My senator then expressed support for counterterror operations, for, that is, "conducting
limited, targeted operations designed to deter violent extremists that pose a credible threat
to America's national security, including al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the Islamic State in
Iraq and Syria (ISIS), localized extremist groups, and homegrown terrorists." My senator then
added a caveat, suggesting that the military should obey "the law of armed conflict" and that
the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that Congress hastily approved in the
aftermath of 9/11 should not be interpreted as an "open-ended mandate" for perpetual war.
Finally, my senator voiced support for diplomacy as well as military action, writing, "I
believe that our foreign policy should be smart, tough, and pragmatic, using every tool in the
toolbox -- including defense, diplomacy, and development -- to advance U.S. security and
economic interests around the world." The conclusion: "robust" diplomacy must be combined with
a "strong" military.
Now, can you guess the name and party affiliation of that senator? Could it have been
Lindsey Graham or Jeff Flake, Republicans who favor a beyond-strong military and endlessly
aggressive counterterror operations? Of course, from that little critical comment on the AUMF,
you've probably already figured out that my senator is a Democrat. But did you guess that my
military-praising, counterterror-waging representative was Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of
Massachusetts?
Full disclosure: I like Warren and have made small contributions to her campaign. And her
letter did stipulate that she believed "military action should always be a last resort." Still,
nowhere in it was there any critique of, or even passingly critical commentary about, the U.S.
military, or the still-spreading war on terror, or the never-ending Afghan War, or the
wastefulness of Pentagon spending, or the devastation wrought in these years by the last
superpower on this planet. Everything was anodyne and safe -- and this from a senator who's
been pilloried by the right as a flaming liberal and caricatured as yet another socialist out
to destroy America.
I know what you're thinking: What choice does Warren have but to play it safe? She can't go
on record criticizing the military. (She's already gotten in enough trouble in my home state
for daring
to criticize the police.) If she doesn't support a "strong" U.S. military presence
globally, how could she remain a viable presidential candidate in 2020?
And I would agree with you, but with this little addendum: Isn't that proof that the
Pentagon has won its most important war, the one that captured -- to steal a phrase from
another losing war -- the "hearts and minds" of America? In this country in 2018, as in 2017,
2016, and so on, the U.S. military and its leaders dictate what is acceptable for us to say and
do when it comes to our prodigal pursuit of weapons and wars.
So, while it's true that the military establishment failed to win those "hearts and minds"
in Vietnam or more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, they sure as hell didn't fail to win them
here. In Homeland, U.S.A., in fact, victory has been achieved and, judging by the
latest Pentagon budgets , it couldn't be more overwhelming.
If you ask -- and few Americans do these days -- why this country's losing wars persist, the
answer should be, at least in part: because there's no accountability. The losers in those wars
have
seized control of our national narrative. They now define how the military is seen (as an
investment, a boon, a good and great thing); they now shape how we view our wars abroad (as
regrettable perhaps, but necessary and also a sign of national toughness); they now assign all
serious criticism of the Pentagon to what they might term the defeatist fringe.
In their hearts, America's self-professed warriors know they're right. But the wrongs
they've committed, and continue to commit, in our name will not be truly righted until
Americans begin to reject the madness of rampant militarism, bloated militaries, and endless
wars.
A retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and professor of history, Astore is aTomDispatch
regular. His personal blog isBracing Views.
You seem to have missed it, but Trump campaigned on an anti-war platform. The real story
is how the Deep State/Cabal turned him around, and how irrelevant elections are .
Another issue is whether or not the US military, especially its flag officers, are even
minimally competent. One suspects they are not.
@bob sykes Too true. Trump also promised to go after the pharmaceutical corporations but
has instead appointed industry insiders to the regulatory positions. He also bought into the
Republican tax cut mania with his foolish corporate tax cut. I suspect that Trump's weakness
of character has made it impossible for him to effectively oppose Washington's usual suspects
and their usual policies.
For a small fraction of the enormous amounts of money Pentagon gets every year any
half-competent political technologist in the US can promote Devil himself as a Savior and
make people believe it.
"American" leaders persist with these stupid wars because they don't fundamentally share a
connection with actual Americans. They are like foreign monarchs who don't speak the native
language. Hence, they don't really care about the locals.
Soon they run up out of the forces. And compulsory military service id the end of their
fun.
Stupid Cupid.
How are those differences different. When two navy ships cried ,that they were allegedly
attacked ,so the US can declare more war on the North Vietnam.
Real and bloody attack the ship Liberty and many deaths , resulted , that, pres. Johnson
shitted himself only and peacefully. .
From the tenor of the 1st 3 paragraphs, one could get the idea that the Central Bankers have
America right where they want her, by the short hairs. Yes folks they have us, and we're on
the fast track to bankruptcy, and foreclosure. If you think I'm full of it look into the
situation in Greece. That poor nation, with help form the Fed, is being cannibalized by the
Euro Central Bankers. Greece has been forced to sell it's national assets, and treasures,
everything on, above and below ground. The deadly and terrible fires which captured world
headlines for a few weeks this summers were to cover the screams of 11 million Greeks as they
watched their natural resources auctioned off to foreigners (Greek citizens were barred from
bidding) at discount, pennies on the dollar. Even the Royal Jewels of Greece were sold. Don't
believe me, read up on it.
Yes I believe the wild fires in Greece this summer were not so wild, or natural. The fires
were a false flag used to steal attention away from the rape of a once great nation. Nothing
but a false flag. A gift form the heartless Central Bankers.
How has the civil-military relationship changed in the last two decades? Despite bending
on social issues (gays in the military, women in more combat roles),
Who is that bending to? Certainly not ordinary civilians, the chattering classes
perhaps.
I hope you're not one of those "peace through de- moralized military "people .It's not the
fighting man's fault we're in all these crappy wars ,it's the politicians ..Or would you
rather have our soldiers spit on when they go out in public Major?
@tyrone "would you rather have our soldiers spit on when they go out in public"
I would rather have soldiers (not OUR soldiers) take responsibility for their actions
instead of the "I was just following orders" cop out. They should not volunteer for anything
going on right now, and they should refuse unlawful, unconstitutional, or immoral orders if
they are already in the military. After all, these are humans capable of thinking and making
moral decisions. They are not GI Joe dolls
@Dutch Boy Well to date, at least Trump hasn't started any wars. Not only that, his
"craziness" seems to be allowing the Koreans to decide their own fate. If they come up with
an end to their war, will anyone sane in the US say no? One down, lots more to go.
I might add,m that his Russian rhetoric is actually pushing the EU and Russia closer
together. Bye Bye NATO?
American leaders lose and lose and lose because Congress is composed of chumps with no balls
like Ro Khanna.Look at this half-assed stab at reinventing the wheel to CIA specifications
The world has already set the rules out in gnat's-ass detail, and the US is bound by it.
Just say so, for chrissake.
First of all, what he seems to be getting at with 'restraint' is codified in binding
black-letter international law and case law. The right to self-defense is subject to
necessity and proportionality tests, and invariably subject to UN Charter Chapter 7 in its
entirety. See Article 51. Instead of this waffle, just say, the president must commit to
faithfully execute the supreme law of the land, specifically including UN Charter Chapter
7.
Second, national security is not a loophole in human rights. Under universal jurisdiction
law, it is a war crime to declare abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the
rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. Domestic human rights are subject
to ICCPR Article 4 and the Siracusa Principles. Instead of CIA's standard National Security
get-out clause, state explicitly that US national security is respect, protection and
fulfillment of all human rights.
Third, internationalism is OK as far as it goes, but he doesn't deal with the underlying
issue: CIA has infested State with focal points and dotted-line reports, and demolished the
department's capacity for pacific resolution of disputes. You need to explicitly tie State's
mission to UN Charter Chapter 6, and criminalize placement of domestic CIA agents in
State.
Fourth, Congressional war-making powers are useless with Congress completely corrupted.
Bring back the Ludlow Amendment, war by public referendum only, subject to Article 51.
So purge these eunuchs and get us a law'norder candidate. Like a Grayson.
As much as I enjoy shooting holes in inanimate objects and seeing stuff blown up into little
pieces, I want to see my country (what's left of it anyway) drastically reduce the number of
its foreign military bases and cease provoking China and Russia with its adolescent
shenanigans. Cutting our losses and leaving Afghanistan after 18 years of folly would also be
a plus. Japan, South Korea and most NATO members are sufficiently grown up to handle and fund
their own military affairs and adventure wars without an American presence and logistical
support. As for the ME, withdraw completely and allow them to return to type. Trade with them
only as necessary and stop importing their cretinous minions to the US. The US military needs
to be repurposed to a robust defense of North America, border and port security and
maintaining freedom of movement in sea lanes in cooperation with other nations. As for
knuckle-cracking Neocons and warmongering MIC bureaucrats, sack the lot and let them take up
selling shoes.
Makes sense: You haven't lost the war if it never ends.
Kind of ironic that America's biggest export business is subject to having its supply
chain crippled on any given day by America's largest rival. As another great American hero
once quipped, "Stupid is as stupid does."
@Unrepentant Conservative Judging by the quality of their policies, the shoes they might
sell would hardly be wearable. I suggest sending them all to Saudi Barbaria or another place
where their ilk is in charge.
Or, to put this article more economically: The USAmerican empire continues on the
irreversible path to which all empires come eventually: decline and fall. Meanwhile, the new
imperial sun rises in the North/East. The nazis' Tausand Jahre Reich lasted about twelve
years, counting from their initiating false-flag – the Reichstag fire – to the
fall of Berlin to the Red Army.* How long for 'the New American Century', counting from its
initiating false-flag, 11/9/01? (British notation ) Twenty five years? Thirty? Less?
And as usual with standard-issue disintegrating empires, only a few can see clearly what's
happening. And no-one – but no-one – can do anything effective to stop it. If you
like 'classical' music, listen again to the insane march episode in the first movement of
Shostakovich's 7th Symphony, 'The Leningrad'. Perfect encapsulation of the inevitable fate of
empires.
What's that you say? The USAmerican empire isn't a standard-issue one? "This time it's
different!"? If you think that, then clearly you're not one of the few who can see clearly
what's happening – as usual. Wake up soon!
________________
* Sure, the piddling USuketc. forces got to West Berlin about the same time. But does any
sane, properly-informed person still think it wasn't the Russians who did the serious heavy
lifting in WW2
Another place the US military is winning is in defending the US Dollar.
If any ME oil producer suggests going off the dollar standard they get whacked . That's
what happened to Saddam Hussein (Iraq) and Muamar Gadafi (Libya) and the threat to Iran.
Recently Mohamed bin Salam (Saudi Arabia) just got a strong reminder of who is in charge and
to stop favouring the Petro/Yuan.
The existing US Dollar world currency reserve status has a lot of advantages, since world
trade has to be priced in it, and world traders have to buy it. Take away this demand and the
dollar is only backed by the US economy (permanent deficits) and its value plummets.
If for example the dollar lost 50% of its value then the US could no longer fund on credit
ME wars, the MIC , special interests, welfare etc. as it is doing at present. The dollar
would have to return to its true value making the US an entirely different place.
Apart from the political impact, outsourcing would shut down, profits would disappear, the
military would have to pull out of bases around the world and ME wars would stop . The US
public would have less purchasing power, having to get used to living at the level of its
social development indicators (for example PISA test scores) somewhere in the region of lower
ranking European countries.
"presidents like George W. Bush have waged a set of brutal wars"
Not a bad example, but pretty conspicuously the only one given. I'm guessing he lives in a
timeline in which Democrats were sometimes manipulated into failing to curb the warmongering
excess of their thoroughly evil Republican predecessors. I won't hold my breath waiting for
him to credit Nixon and Reagan with ending the two longest-running wars of the 20th
Century.
Democracies fight wars as necessary, whereas Empires are constantly at war to preserve a
power structure with them on top. Winning the war and getting it over with is the goal in the
first case. Not losing a war and maintaining a threat to your opponents is the goal in the
second. This illustrates why empires eventually fall: it takes a constant expenditure of
energy to try to dominate everyone and the empire eventually can't back up its' non-stop
bullying.
It's not military weakness that is causing the US to slowly lose wars. Military reforms
wouldn't make US forces vastly more effective and capable of "winning". The problem is the
political context under which the military is employed. As long as the US is engaged in
building and maintaining an empire, the situation won't change.
You seem to have missed it, but Trump campaigned on an anti-war platform. The real story
is how the Deep State/Cabal turned him around, and how irrelevant elections are.
Trump wasn't turned around he is just a lair. He is a member of the Deep State.
Like Eric Margolis said, you don't win a war by killing people. You win a war by achieving
your strategic objective. Now, absent that, what the hell's the point? 1) Bushels of Money;
2) Perpetual Chaos. And that pair would make Trotsky and his backers proud. So, we haven't
come far, only deeper.
Wars in the Zionist template are not meant to be won, the wars are fought to terrorize both
the American people and the people of the targeted country and thus increase the governments
control over America and increase the profits of the Zionist banking cabal that perpetrated
the wars.
Read Orwells 1984 in the chapter on why wars are fought and as Orwell says , wars are not
fought to be won, they are fought to control the people and chew up the resources of the
countries in both sides of the conflict and keep the people on both sides in a state of
terror from a created terror threat, just as it is here in America aka Oceania.
The war on terror is a created lie, the Zionist controlled U.S. and Israel and Britain and
NATO created ISIS aka AL CIADA to provide the excuse to fight a threat that they created by
the Zionist controlled deep state and Israels attack on the WTC which led to the 17 year war
against the created threat.
America will never have peace as long as America is under Zionist control which it has
been since 1913 with the passage of the Zionist privately owned FED and IRS, which gives
Zionist bankers the ability to create money out of thin air to fund their wars and the IRS
gives them the power to tax the America people to pay for the Zionist wars.
Free America from Zionist control abolish the FED and the IRS.
Yes, well said, but one quibble: "Invest" in Wall Street? haha. At least with our ridiculous
winless wars we get to keep some sliver our our technological base. Wall Street is purely
parasitic
The biggest reason these wars go on and on and on is there is no draft. Anyone who was alive
during the Vietnam era knows this to be true. It was the anti-war, which in reality was the
anti-draft movement that put an end to the quagmire which was Vietnam.
Any one who will admit the truth knows we here in America do not care about anything that
does not concern us. As long as I don't have to go fight and die in some shit hole country, I
really can't be bothered with such things. The "haves" will never worry about the fate of the
"have not's".
The Empire is assured a steady stream of new "volunteers" as we have shipped our jobs and
manufacturing over seas. The poor with no prospects for a career, or even a job in anything
above the fast food industry see the military as their only hope for any kind of a future.
Charlie Daniels states in his song Long Haired Country Boy "A rich man goes to college and a
poor man goes to work". To be brought up to date, the line needs to be re-written as "A rich
man goes to college and a poor man goes to war".
The Empire(and its lap dogs the media)learned it had brighten the image of the armed
forces. No more stories of soldiers being spit on and called baby killers when they returned
home. It now would be yellow ribbons and waving flags for our soldiers returning home to a
hero's welcome.
If you think this perspective is incorrect, imagine the average college student, the ones
who had to take the day off from school when Trump was elected would react if they received
the following in the mail:
Greeting: You are hereby ordered for induction into the Armed Forces of the United States and
to report at Local Board No. 54, 24800 Mission Blvd., Hayward California on November 30th
2018 at 6:45 A.M.
Willful failure to report at the place and hour of the day named in this Order subjects the
violator to fine and imprisonment.
@Realist Trump didn't fill his Cabinet with the type of people who would be eager to
pursue his promises of troop withdrawals. It was alarming to see the inflow of generals and
bankers.
"The character and charisma long ago associated with the pioneer or the small farmer -- or
carried in the 1960s by Dr. King and the civil-rights movement -- has now come to rest
upon the soldier." This elevation of "our" troops as America's moral heroes feeds a
Pentagon imperative that seeks to isolate the military from criticism and its commanders
from accountability for wars gone horribly wrong."
You mean, that Dr. King ? the one who largely copied his "I have a dream speech"
(from Republican Archibald Carey Jr.), plagiarized his doctoral thesis, was a serial
adulterer, and who denied the deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth and the bodily Resurrection,
all while claiming to be a Christian preacher– a man who at the same time saw fit to
"instruct" Americans about the content of their character on other matters?
You don't have to be a Christian, nor believe in faithful marriages, fundamental and
orthodox Christian doctrine, or the integrity of academic papers to see that your use of MLK
here, is based upon the same moral and ethical logic that demands respect for the military,
while shielding it from criticism. It's the same game of constant and escalating virtue
signaling.
@Jeff Stryker{If war is such a good racket why has the US worse off }
Depending whose ox is being not-gored.
US – as a country of your average American taxpayers – is definitely worse
off: relentlessly growing national debt, higher and higher t taxes, deterioration of
infrastructure, loss of purchasing power.
Because the negative changes are small, they are not generally noticed.
But it is clear, if you know where to look, the country is gradually falling apart.
On the other hand – US as the top 1%, the rulers, the connected etc – is doing
great.
Top 1% now own about 40% of wealth in US.
The gap has widened over the years and keeps widening
For all practical purposes the American middle class has disappeared or disappearing
depending where you are.
"Middle class" husband and wife both have to work to raise 1 or maybe 2 kids.
Many moons ago just the husband worked and Americans easily raised 3-4 kids.
Unfortunately, the deep state obviously considers these wars "wins". Failing to recognize
that the enemy, in fact, rules us, helps continue the inevitability of that rule
I hope you're not one of those "peace through de- moralized military "people .It's not
the fighting man's fault we're in all these crappy wars ,it's the politicians ..Or would
you rather have our soldiers spit on when they go out in public Major?
I would prefer that people stop all this "they're fighting for our freedom" bulls ** t, as
it is transparent nonsense. "Our troops" are certainly not fighting for our freedom. If they
are, they're doing a really lousy job, because they've been fighting nearly non-stop for 17
years now, and yet we are getting steadily less free.
Well to date, at least Trump hasn't started any wars. Not only that, his "craziness"
seems to be allowing the Koreans to decide their own fate. If they come up with an end to
their war, will anyone sane in the US say no? One down, lots more to go.
I'm very ambivalent about the whole Korean thing. What happens if the North Korean regime
falls and Korea is unified under the southern regime – essentially the same scenario
that happened to Germany? Will our military stay there? Something tells me that the Pentagon
and whatever administration is in power at that time will answer yes. That would place an
American ally with American soldiers right on the border of China. Is that a good idea? I
don't think so – it seems a lot more dangerous in the long run than having, as we have
now, a buffer between us, even if that buffer is one of the crazy Kims with their
Baby's-First-Nuclear-Arsenal.
Superpowers (by which I mean any country with nuclear weapons) need to not border one
another, especially when one of them is the United States.
@Avery It sure went downhill since I left the US in 1999. If you had been overseas for 20
years like I have, being a single white male with no reason to return to the United States,
believe me you'd see the difference.
Hey, Astore ..how can you keyboard a screed concerning the ongoing wanton destruction of the
Mideast without once fingering the conniving jooies for pushing their selfish agenda
relentlessly? Your precious US military has simply been reduced to a well equipped and
financed group of mercenaries hired on to operate as the attack wing of the IDF. Everyone
knows it including you .
Apart from the cliche, "wars are for profits and power", the other important reason to keep
the troops abroad would be to prevent a civil war at home by the "God, guns and guts"crowd,
who might be tempted to carry out more Pittsburgh style attacks on those who don't fit into
the rightwing narrative, as the comment number two amply demonstrates.
@Curmudgeon I agree. I don't usually agree with Trumps rhetoric but the results seem to
be working for us in ways. NATO going away would be a huge win for the American people and
the world.
<
Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish
between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the
US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.>
As with any event I always look at who benefits. Certainly the anti-gun lobby. Zionists
have always benefitted from such acts as they use them to get more protection against
criticism of their policies (eg legislation to define antisemitism as hate speech which would
include criticism of Israel). Remember the NY bombing threats a couple of years ago were
coming from an individual said to be working alone in Israel)
Be interesting to learn more about this Bowers. I am skeptical its a psyops at this point
because he was taken alive, but who knows.
What is often missing in comments is the importance of not confusing Zionism with Zionist
"Jews", Zionists with Jew and Jews with Semites!
Zionism is an extremely radical anti-Jewish ideology that is based on a fantasy of a
racial/cultural pure society, as was Nazism and the Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
states (excluding Oman). This is not to say that there are not other societies that are
racist, such as the US, Japan and India to mention just a few.
Most believers in Zionism are Radical conservative Christians with some 40 million in the
US alone. A vast majority of US Christians support Zionism via their voting for Politicians
that support Zionism and Zionist "Jews".
Jews are just those that practice one of the variations of the Jewish religion much like
there are various Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox sects. As long as a religion practices an
inner form of the religion (e.g. some Sufi Islamic sects) that provides a moral basis for
interactions with other in a society there is little harm in religion.
Jews are considered a part of the broad category of Semitic people the denotes a family of
languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as
Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/semitic
"Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi
specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians/Syriacs, Samaritans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans,
and Mhallami, all have a common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to
the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one
another, indicating the different histories of these peoples."
Furthermore, Jews are generally less Semitic than their current neighbors as: "A DNA study
of "six Middle Eastern populations (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Kurdish Jews from Israel;
Muslim Kurds; Muslim Arabs from Israel and the Palestinian Authority Area; and Bedouin from
the Negev)" found that Jews were more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile
Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
It is important to point out that Benzion Netanyahu (AKA Ben Nitay) may not be Semitic
like many of the Jews in the government of Israel. His father was a Zionist Rabbi in Poland
named Benzion Mileikowsky who was also a one-time secretary of Vladimir Jabotinsky. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benzion-Netanyahu
Anti-Semitic Zionist "Jews" are mostly Ashkenazim (only some 40% of these have generic
markers for Semitic Jews) and not only are anti-Semitic against the Palestinian Muslims and
Christians but are also discriminating against the Ultra-Orthodox Semitic Jews. Furthermore,
the Zionist Jews are facing daily protests against their rule from Semitic Jews, Christians
and Muslims who are actually citizens of the state of Israel. Recently these protests have
increased since the Zionist "Jews" that currently control Israel even passed a bill that
officially defines Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people and Hebrew as the
country's official language.
Anti-Semitic Zionist "Jews" also do not recognize the Syrian citizenship of the Druze
living in the occupied Golan Heights. The refuse to take Israeli citizenship and use a
Israeli laissez-passer to travel outside of Israel with the citizenship box left empty.
Likewise, the Zionist anti-Semites suppress three million, mostly Semites, living in open
air concentration camps and have killed and wounded some 10,000 as collective punishment with
the approval of the West (including Australia). https://joanroelofs.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/insecurity-blanket.pdf
@51 Krollchem - "...the importance of not confusing Zionism with Zionist "Jews", Zionists
with Jew and Jews with Semites!"
Yes indeed.
True it is that Zionists are the Jews' worst enemies, as Alan Hart pointed out in this
talk, titled after his 3-volume book and available on YouTube: Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews
We are familiar now with seeing how many of our confusions are actually caused by the
disinformation machine, and the same can be said for the massive conflation that takes place
between the notions of Zionism, Jewishness and Semitism.
Trolls come to western discussions all the time to inflame anti-semitism - why would
Israel send them to do that? Because anti-semitism is the racism that forms the smoke behind
which Zionism can hide.
Zionism essentially uses the Jews as human shields. Like the Wahhabi, Zionism hides behind
innocent civilians. And because of the fog of war put out by Zionist disinformation and
field-level trolling, few critics can take aim at the Zionist actions hiding behind the Jews,
and don't dare shoot for fear of hitting "Semites", so called.
Thanks for the two links! I come to MoA to learn and appreciate your comment and the
additional info.
Pft , Oct 28, 2018 6:36:52 PM | 39
">link
Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish
between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the
US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.
Russia tried to have resolution passed at the UN in favour of the INF Treaty. It was blocked
by Washington's EU lickspittles including Germany. Never, ever take any pronouncement by
NATzO hyenas at face value. When it comes time to put money where the mouth is, then true
beliefs become apparent. These morons couldn't even support Russia's UN resolution although
they are in harm's way from the death of the INF.
"... Roberts goes on to say that the ideology of US neoconservatives is "akin to the German Nazy Party last century" in their ideology of American supremacy and exceptionalism. ..."
Roberts, Former Asst. Treasury Secretary in the Reagan administration and former
contributing editor at the Wall Street Journal has been an outspoken critic of neocon foreign
policy and Washington corruption from a conservative viewpoint.
He has an enormous following on the internet and publishes at the Unz Review and on his own
website.
... ... ...
Roberts, 79, served in the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1982. He was formerly a
distinguished fellow at the Cato Institute and a senior research fellow at the Hoover
Institution, and has written for the Wall Street Journal and Businessweek.
Roberts maintains an active
blog .
He's also vehemently against interventionary wars around the world , and spoke with Russia's
state-owned Sputnik news in a
Tuesday article - in which Roberts said that President Trump's decision to pull out of the
Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty was a handout to the military-security
complex.
The former Reagan administration official clarified that he does not think "that the
military-security complex itself wants a war with Russia, but it does want an enemy that
can be used to justify more spending. " He explained that the withdrawing from the INF
Treaty "gives the military-security complex a justification for a larger budget and new
money to spend: manufacturing the formerly banned missiles."
...
The economist highlighted that " enormous sums spent on 'defense' enabled the armaments
corporations to control election outcomes with campaign contributions ," adding that in
addition, "the military has bases and the armaments corporations have factories in almost
every state so that the population, dependent on the jobs, support high amounts of
'defense' spending."
"That was 57 years ago," he underscored. "You can imagine how much stronger the
military-security complex is today." - Sputnik
Roberts also suggested that " The Zionist Neoconservatives are responsible for Washington's
unilateral abandonment of the INF treaty, just as they were responsible for Washington's
unilateral abandonment of the ABM Treaty [in 2002], the Iran nuclear agreement, and the promise
not to move NATO one inch to the East. "
Is this what got him suspended?
Roberts goes on to say that the ideology of US neoconservatives is "akin to the German
Nazy Party last century" in their ideology of American supremacy and exceptionalism.
" Their over-confidence about their ability to quickly defeat Israel's enemies and open the
Middle East to Israeli expansion got the US bogged down in wars in the Middle East for 17 years
... During this time, both Russia and China rose much more quickly than the neoconservatives
thought possible."
Dr. Roberts opined that US policy makers are seeking to weaponize the Russian opposition
and "pro-Western elements" to exert pressure on Moscow into "accommodating Washington in
order to have the sanctions removed." On the other hand, the Trump administration's new arms
race could force Russia into spending more on defense, according to the author. - Sputnik
While we don't know if Roberts' Sputnik interview resulted in his Twitter ban 48 hours
later, it's entirely possible.
"... This is what has been missing for over 40 years in the US, government's role in the economy. When any politician brings up the fact that it's time we used fiscal policy as it was designed, neoliberals have a socialism meltdown. Both parties have been taken over by the Kochtopus, The libertarian fascist ideology that hides behind the term "neoliberalism". The ultimate goal of this zombie ideology that was thoroughly discredited in 2008 but continues to roam the earth is to replace nations with privately owned cities. ..."
"... This is the struggle -- the struggle to maintain public space on a planet that was never meant to be owned in the first place. ..."
"Government exists to spend. The purpose of government is to serve the general welfare of the
citizens, not just the military-industrial complex and the financial class. Didn't we have a
stimulus, oh, eight years ago? It was tiny and has not been entirely spent. As Yellen
implied, we need more spending of the non-military kind (what Barney Frank memorably called
"weaponized Keynesianism" doesn't stimulate)."
This is what has been missing for over 40 years in the US, government's role in the
economy. When any politician brings up the fact that it's time we used fiscal policy as it
was designed, neoliberals have a socialism meltdown. Both parties have been taken over by the
Kochtopus, The libertarian fascist ideology that hides behind the term "neoliberalism". The
ultimate goal of this zombie ideology that was thoroughly discredited in 2008 but continues
to roam the earth is to replace nations with privately owned cities. This experiment was
going on in Honduras, following the 2009 coup, until it was finally ended by a SC ruling that
it was unconstitutional.
"In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property
lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real
property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers -- not
legal and illegal immigrants." ~ Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute
This is the struggle -- the struggle to maintain public space on a planet that was
never meant to be owned in the first place.
Trump may have his own views, but he has no own foreign policy. He is a neocon's
marionette.
Notable quotes:
"... Instead Bush, and later Obama, transitioned the military mission -- without consultation from Congress -- into a nation-building effort that was doomed from the start. Candidate Donald Trump spoke of a different approach to the Middle East and railed against nation-building abroad. His instincts on Afghanistan have been consistent and correct from very early on. Had it not been for the relentless pressure of several key officials, the war might already have come to end. ..."
"... Woodward wrote ..."
"... Trump defers to the Pentagon because he doesn't really care. He says he wants to get out of Afghanistan (and I support that) but getting out isn't going to make him any money, or get him any votes. So why bother with it, especially when he can lie to his base and tell them we are already out, and they'll believe him? ..."
"... Trump is the kind of person who likes to "talk the talk" but when comes right down to it, he going to sadly, "walk the walk" that the Washington establishment tells him to walk. ..."
"... The treasonous MIC and those top generals do not care about the nation and ordinary Americans. They care only about their profits, careers and their own egos. ..."
"... There is no war they don't like – Middle East, checked, Ukraine, yes, South China Sea, sure, Korea, definitely. It is so sad that Trump turns out to be such a weak and impotent president, contrary to what the supporters claim. ..."
In a routine dating back to 2004, U.S. officials
regularly claim that the latest strategy in Afghanistan is working -- or as General David
Petraeus said in
2012 , the war had "turned a corner." It hadn't and it still hasn't. In fact, evidence
overwhelmingly affirms that the newest "new" strategy will be no more effective than those that
came before it. It is time to stop losing U.S. lives while pretending that victory is just
around the corner. It is time to end the war in Afghanistan.
Last week, one of the most brazen insider attacks of the war took place in Kandahar when one
of the Afghanistan governor's bodyguards turned rogue,
killingthree high-profile
Afghan leaders and
wounding the senior U.S. field commander, Brigadier General Jeffrey Smiley. Miraculously,
the new commander, General Scott Miller, escaped harm. But in 2018,
eight Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, bringing the American death toll to
2,351 .
On October 7, 2001, President George W. Bush
addressed the nation as combat operations in Afghanistan began. He emphasized that the
American "mission is defined. The objectives are clear. [Our] goal is just." Those objectives,
he explained , were "targeted actions" that were "designed to disrupt the use of
Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the
Taliban regime."
By the summer of 2002, those objectives were fully met as the Taliban organization was
wholly destroyed and al-Qaeda severely degraded. As of 2009, there were reportedly
as few as 100 stragglers scattered impotently throughout Afghanistan. The military mission
should therefore have ended and combat forces redeployed.
Instead Bush, and later Obama, transitioned the military mission -- without consultation
from Congress -- into a nation-building effort that was doomed from the start. Candidate Donald
Trump spoke of a different approach to the Middle East and railed against nation-building
abroad. His instincts on Afghanistan have been consistent and correct from very early on. Had
it not been for the relentless pressure of several key officials, the war might already have
come to end.
After a December 2015 insider attack, Trump tweeted : "A suicide
bomber has just killed U.S. troops in Afghanistan. When will our leaders get tough and smart.
We are being led to slaughter!" According to Bob Woodward's book Fear , Trump brought
that same passion against the futility of the Afghan war into the White House.
Woodward
wrote that at an August 2017 meeting on Afghanistan, Trump told his generals that the
war had been "a disaster," and chided them for "wanting to add even more troops to something I
don't believe in."
Woodward claims that Trump then told the top brass, "I was against this from the beginning.
He folded his arms. 'I want to get out,' the president said. 'And you're telling me the answer
is to get deeper in.'" Under pressure -- from the likes of Secretary of Defense James Mattis
and Senator Lindsey Graham -- Trump eventually gave in.
Events have since proven that Trump would have done the country a favor by resisting that
pressure and sticking to his instincts to end the war. The violence
keeps up at a record pace, civilian casualties continue to set
all-time highs , and Afghan troops struggle
mightily with battle losses. The president was right in August 2017 and his instincts
remain solid today.
The longer Trump continues to defer to the establishment thinking that produced 17
consecutive years of military failure, the longer that failure will afflict us, the more
casualties we will suffer unnecessarily, and the more money we will pour down the drain.
It is time for Trump to remember that it is futile to try to win the unwinnable and finally
end America's longest war.
Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lieutenant
Colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments,
two of which were in Afghanistan.
Trump defers to the Pentagon because he doesn't really care. He says he wants to get out of
Afghanistan (and I support that) but getting out isn't going to make him any money, or get
him any votes. So why bother with it, especially when he can lie to his base and tell them we
are already out, and they'll believe him?
Trump is the kind of person who likes to "talk the talk" but when comes right down to it, he
going to sadly, "walk the walk" that the Washington establishment tells him to walk.
The treasonous MIC and those top generals do not care about the nation and ordinary
Americans. They care only about their profits, careers and their own egos.
There is no war they don't like – Middle East, checked, Ukraine, yes, South China
Sea, sure, Korea, definitely. It is so sad that Trump turns out to be such a weak and impotent president, contrary to
what the supporters claim.
I think a lot of us could have tolerated the asinine antics if he had stuck to his campaign
positions on this and other things .
God; what might have been .
SDS, you are correct. I've often thought that Trump could have forged a majority coalition by
doing things the People really wanted, or at least didn't hate: nominating another Gorsuch,
cutting the size of government, appointing competent people, getting out of the Middle East,
no tariffs, less racism, getting concession from businesses that benefited from the tax cut,
following emoluments rules, etc. etc.
"I think a lot of us could have tolerated the asinine antics if he had stuck to his
campaign positions on this and other things . God; what might have been ."
First, sorry you fell for The Con. I understand. Maybe. Second, the real question is, "What are you going to do about it?". Vote Republican Nov 6? Why would you do that? Hope against all hope? Dementia? Gluttony
for punishment? BTW. HRC is not on the ballot this time, and will never be again.
Unless we intend to invade en mass, and scour the country from one end to the other to defeat
any and all opponents, the mission in Afghanistan will remain what it is. "new wine (of
sorts) in old wineskins.
If we are going to remake a country -- we had better remake it. I am not sure i have ever
said this before but the entire affair
We hear Pakistan is now desperate for IMF aid. That the One belt One Road initiative there by
China has already put the country in the position of having to stand down its creditor,
China. Partly with the help of Japanese finance, Iran and India are out to squeeze Islamabad
out of world trade.
The Pakis are headed into a new dark age, so don't expect the Russians to bark wildly and
chase down this car. With any luck, they and China will revive the Northern Alliance, make a
garrison of Kabul, and eventually Xi and Vladi will have their own escalating civil war over
control over Central Asia.
I'd say January 2019 is a good time to begin a quick US withdrawal, just as long as we
pull out of the IMF and not give another red American cent to the region, save a green zone
around Kabul with economically productive areas.
I would argue that although this would seem like an American loss, it will put our
Progressive yappers to shame. What human values would they stand up and defend now, among the
IndoPak Caravan? Maybe then we'll really focus on our own border and wage the good fight
where it is needed -- the Culture War.
Obama had intended to leave. The military insisted on vict'ry and another Surge. He gave them
their Surge and their time to do it. They failed, made things worse and prevented Obama from
leaving. They're still playing. Trump's just the latest Oval Office 'sucker'.
"... Bankers, agro-business elites, commercial mega owners, manufacturing, real estate and insurance bosses and their financial advisers, elite members of the 'ruling class', have launched a full-scale attack on private and public wage and salary workers, and small and medium size entrepreneurs (the members of the 'popular classes'). The attack has targeted income ,pensions, medical plans, workplace conditions, job security, rents, mortgages, educational costs, taxation,undermining family and household cohesion. ..."
"... Big business has weakened or abolished political and social organizations which challenge the distribution of income and profits and influence the rates of workplace output. In brief the ruling classes have intensified exploitation and oppression through the 'class struggle' from above. ..."
"... The United States witnessed the ruling class take full control of the state, the workplace and distribution of social expenditures. ..."
"... The upsurge of the popular class struggle was contained and confined by the center-left political elite, while the ruling class marked time, making business deals to secure lucrative state contracts via bribes to the ruling center-left allied with the conservative political elite . ..."
"... The big business ruling class learned their lessons from their previous experience with weak and conciliating neo-liberal regimes. They sought authoritarian and, if possible rabble rousing political leaders, who could dismantle the popular organizations, and gutted popular welfare programs and democratic institutions, which previously blocked the consolidation of the neo-liberal New Order. ..."
"... The term "invidious distinction" was coined by Thornstein Veblen in his seminal "The Theory of the Leisure Class", in which Veblen argues that one of the primary human motivations is to evoke envy in our fellows. ..."
"... "Popular" class struggles need to be seen for what they are; temporary expedients whereby one set of rulers uses the populace for their own ends and against their competitors. ..."
"... Too many people get suckered into supporting "popular" movements and sometimes do gain temporary benefits, but when their handlers get what they want, the fun and games are over. ..."
Bankers, agro-business elites, commercial mega owners, manufacturing, real estate and
insurance bosses and their financial advisers, elite members of the 'ruling class', have
launched a full-scale attack on private and public wage and salary workers, and small and
medium size entrepreneurs (the members of the 'popular classes'). The attack has targeted
income ,pensions, medical plans, workplace conditions, job security, rents, mortgages,
educational costs, taxation,undermining family and household cohesion.
Big business has weakened or abolished political and social organizations which challenge
the distribution of income and profits and influence the rates of workplace output. In brief
the ruling classes have intensified exploitation and oppression through the 'class struggle'
from above.
We will proceed by identifying the means, methods and socio-political conditions which have
advanced the class struggle from above and, conversely, reversed and weakened the class
struggle from below.
Historical Context
The class struggle is the major determinant of the advances and regression of the interests
of the capitalist class. Following the Second World War, the popular classes experienced steady
advances in income, living standards, and work place representation. However by the last decade
of the 20 th century the balance of power between the ruling and popular classes
began to shift, as a new 'neo-liberal' development paradigm became prevalent.
First and foremost, the state ceased to negotiate and conciliate relations between rulers
and the working class: the [neoliberal] state concentrated on de-regulating the economy,
reducing corporate taxes, and eliminating labor's role in politics and the division of profits
and income.
The concentration of state power and income was not uncontested and was not uniform in all
regions and countries. Moreover, counter-cyclical trends, reflecting shifts in the balance of
the class struggle precluded a linear process. In Europe, the Nordic and Western European
countries' ruling classes advanced privatization of public enterprises, reduced social welfare
costs and benefits, and pillaged overseas resources but were unable to break the state funded
welfare system. In Latin America the advance and regression of the power, income and welfare of
the popular class, correlated with the outcome of the class and state struggle.
The United States witnessed the ruling class take full control of the state, the
workplace and distribution of social expenditures.
In brief, by the end of the 20 th century, the ruling class advanced in assuming
a dominant role in the class struggle.
Nevertheless, the class struggle from below retained its presence, and in some places,
namely in Latin America, the popular classes were able to secure a share of state power –
at least temporarily.
Popular Power: Contesting the Class Struggle from Above
Latin America is a prime example of the uneven trajectory of the class struggle.
Between the end of World War Two and the late 1940's, the popular classes were able to
secure democratic rights, populist reforms and social organization. Guatemala, Argentina,
Uruguay, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela were among the leading examples. By the early 1950's with
the onset of the US imperialist 'cold war', in collaboration with the regional ruling classes
launched a violent class war from above, which took the form of military coups in Guatemala,
Peru, Argentina, Venezuela and Brazil. The populist class struggle was defeated by the US
backed military- business rulers who, temporarily imposed US agro-mineral export economies.
The 1950's were the 'golden epoch' for the advance of US multi-nationals and Pentagon
designed regional military alliances. But the class struggle from below rose again and found
expression in the growth of a progressive national populist industrializing coalition, and the
successful Cuban socialist regime and its followers in revolutionary social movements in the
rest of Latin America throughout the 1960's.
The revolutionary popular class insurgency of the early 1960's was countered by the ruling
class seizure of power backed by military-US led coups between 1964-1976 which demolished the
regimes and institutions of the popular classes in Brazil (1964), Bolivia (1970), Chile (1973),
Argentina (1976) , Peru (1973) and elsewhere.
Economic crises of the early 1980s reduced the role of the military and led to a 'negotiated
transition' in which the ruling class advanced a neo-liberal agenda in exchange for electoral
participation under military and US tutelage.
Lacking direct military rule, the ruling class struggle succeeded in muting the popular
class struggle by co-opting the center-left political elites. The ruling class did not or could
not establish hegemony over the popular classes even as they proceeded with their neo-liberal
agenda.
With the advent of the 21 st century a new cycle in the class struggle from below
burst forth. Three events intersected: the global crises of 2000 triggered regional financial
crashes, which in turn led to a collapse of industries and mass unemployment, which intensified
mass direct action and the ouster of the neo-liberal regimes. Throughout the first decade of
the 21 st century, neo-liberalism was in retreat. The popular class struggle and the
rise of social movements displaced the neo-liberal regimes but was incapable of replacing the
ruling classes. Instead hybrid center-left electoral regimes took power.
The new power configuration incorporated popular social movements, center-left parties and
neo-liberal business elites. Over the next decade the cross-class alliance advanced largely
because of the commodity boom which financed welfare programs, increased employment,
implemented poverty reduction programs and expanded investments in infrastructure.
Post-neoliberal regimes co-opted the leaders of the popular classes, replaced ruling class
political elites but did not displace the strategic structural positions of the business ruling
class..
The upsurge of the popular class struggle was contained and confined by the center-left
political elite, while the ruling class marked time, making business deals to secure lucrative
state contracts via bribes to the ruling center-left allied with the conservative political
elite .
The end of the commodity boom, forced the center-left to curtail its social welfare and
infrastructure programs and fractured the alliance between big business leaders and center-left
political elites. The ensuing economic recession facilitated the return of the neo-liberal
political elite to power.
The big business ruling class learned their lessons from their previous experience with weak
and conciliating neo-liberal regimes. They sought authoritarian and, if possible rabble rousing
political leaders, who could dismantle the popular organizations, and gutted popular welfare
programs and democratic institutions, which previously blocked the consolidation of the
neo-liberal New Order.
"The rightist rhetoric turns against itself as its followers engage in invidious
distinctions ."
Interesting. You don't see Veblen's "invidious distinction" trotted out very often these
days which is a pity. More the pity that it is misused in quote above. It's probably
uncharitable to take cheap shots at the article, which is a beautiful, anti-fa inspired,
fairytale history of the modern age. I just wish more care would be used for Marxist and
non-marxist socialist phrases such as "class struggle" and "invidious distinction" because it
impossible to detest them adequately when they are improperly deployed.
The term "invidious distinction" was coined by Thornstein Veblen in his seminal "The
Theory of the Leisure Class", in which Veblen argues that one of the primary human
motivations is to evoke envy in our fellows. Veblen thought that because all value is
subjective/arbitrary, it's quite reasonable to assume that the most efficient value signal is
that which creates the most envy in other men. A man's social standing is therefore
efficiently established by status symbols that invoke envy such as a Rolex or a Mercedes. The
peculiar consequence of this is that often, men desire a thing like a Rolex because other men
want one, even up to the point when the object lacks any utility whatsoever other than signaling wealth, which itself is defined as having things that others want. Invidious
distinction is therefore best evidenced through conspicuous consumption, however nearly all
actions that do not have subsistence as their aim are undertaken to gain social standing or
signal social standing by invoking envy.
Thus the quote above could be rewritten to be "The rightist rhetoric turns against
itself as its followers engage in non-subsistence activities" which is kind of dumb. If
the author is prognosticating that the authoritarian new order will turn on itself, it'd be
nice to know have a more substantive explanation than "non-subsistence activities". Moreover,
if the authoritarian new order is to shed it's "shock troops" in exchange for "meritocrats"
it'd be nice to know why. That's my 2 cents, but I'm curious to know what others think of
this curious tale!
The corruption of upwardly mobile middle-class rabble rousers will disillusion their
voluntary followers. Arbitrary police and military repression usually extends to extortion
and intimidation beyond the drug slums to the middle and working-class neighborhoods.
Also, the rise of AI, data mining, and complex algorithms, as well as the proliferation of
electronic devices that record and analyze our private spaces is a pillar of the new order.
Essentially, we are being watched by machines.
People need to reject the material order. Spiritual awakening is the key.
Revolutionaries will find new ways to defeat these technology-based tactics. Dogwhistling,
communication on a personal level (rather than by mass media or the internet), and
old-fashioned tribalism should help. Also, leaderless resistance can play a role. Weaknesses
will be found in the crumbling edifice, and many hands can chisel separately.
Infiltration and sabotage can also be applied.
Possibly unrelated, but maybe thought-provoking:
Consider the man they just arrested for the mail bomb scare. Reportedly, this person was a
career criminal with drug dealing and grand theft on his record and he was caught in
possession of a white van with decals on it depicting his targets. This man is a caricature
of a Trump supporter, ready-made for the cable news broadcast. Does anyone else see the
absurdity of it? Can this guy be for real?
The authoritarian New Order usually begins to decline through 'internal rot' –
uber- profiteering and flagrant abuse of work.
" However sustaining their advance is conditional on dynamic economic growth "
You cannot fool all people all the time.
Our Dutch Rutte governments now for some ten years have told us that the economy is growing,
alas the average Dutchman by now knows that 'there are lies, big lies, and statistics', in
other words, it may well be that the economy is growing, but the average Dutchman does not
see his buying power increased.
On the contrary, those that work have a more or less constant buying power, those that do not
work, for whatever reason: cannot find a job, permanent illness, retired, see quite well how
their material position deteriorates steadily.
The alliance of big globalized business and big Governments is an unbearable burden for most
of the populations. Since the 70`s you have to work more and more and to study more and more for less and
less
I foresee that if this continue in the next 20 years millions and millions of people will
die of marginalization, of hunger , misery and grief .
This is the most important problem governments, and in the wider sense humanity is
encountering.
The pendulum is incessantly swinging from center to right and than reverses from right to
left.
Marx theories are totally one sided and do not solve anything. Extreme swing to the left
brought at start enthusiasm of the working classes and for certain time progress of the
humanity was phenomenal. But in time the progress did stop and population become lethargic
and progress become stagnation leading to depression. Similar thing happens when pendulum is
swinging to the right.
Eventually the purchasing power of the population diminishes to the size when crisis of the
system is inevitable.
Most important task of the governments is to control the economy that the extent of the
swings are small as possible.
@Anon Things seem to have improved in Asia since I first went abroad in 2000. In the US,
on the other hand, life seems to have gotten more and more difficult.
If you had told me in 1993 when I left home that Gen Y of age 30 would live at home and
that entire families of white people would be homeless or that MBA's would have to work in
Bistros at age 25 I would have said you're crazed.
The odd thing in the US is that it is the middle-class seems to have gotten hit the worst.
The white underclass and blacks have always had it hard and poor. Much of the time they
deserve it because they have babies at 19 and don't go to college. But the destruction of the
middle-class whites is quite phenomenal.
It is unbearable for the middle-class. The underclass does not care. Big governments tend
to be corrupt, so money talks. If you live in the ghetto or the trailer park you have no expectations anyhow. You were
not going to be a great citizen anyhow. But for the middle-class things will be shocking.
I doubt that such a thing ever occurred to any substantial degree. "Popular" class
struggles need to be seen for what they are; temporary expedients whereby one set of rulers
uses the populace for their own ends and against their competitors.
Too many people get suckered into supporting "popular" movements and sometimes do gain
temporary benefits, but when their handlers get what they want, the fun and games are over.
The author noted the concept, saying,
Between the end of World War Two and the late 1940's, the popular classes were able to
secure democratic rights, populist reforms and social organization. [but then began]
bullying of traditional allies
No "will be" about it. You noted it in your comment #10 and my observations agree,
But the destruction of the middle-class whites is quite phenomenal.
The assault on the middle class has been taking place for decades and many people have
been feeling it although most apparently still hope for some Messiah, and many of them
apparently think either Hillaryena or the Trumpster was it. Where they get their faith I'll
never know.
@jilles dykstra Same thing in Spain, and in most of western Europe I would say . The macroeconomy is going well for the chosen ones , and the microeconomy is going very bad for
most of the population .
Much of the time they deserve it because they don't go to college.
Wrong.
Schooling in the USA for some time been nothing more than babysitting and brainwashing and
that's by design. Completing college nowadays is mainly for immature, dependent losers
especially since many of them will be burdened with a non-marketable degree and debt for
decades and in any case, the majority will wind up as wage slaves anyway. The way to go now
is to learn a trade, especially one that a person can practice independently and with low
capital, and get to work, but the window for even that seems to be fast closing too.
If one has the talent (rare) sales can still be a good road to relative independence with
no "collitch" needed.
@Jeff Stryker "If you live in the ghetto or the trailer park you have no expectations
anyhow. You were not going to be a great citizen anyhow."
"But for the middle-class things will be shocking."
Spot on, Jeff. I see remnants of the onetime middle class around me. People with a degree or advanced degree, people with
identifiable special skills (accountancy, engineering) who guard their expertise as would a 15th century guild worker, people
with decent table manners...
Then their Fortune 500 company kicks them out of their corporate featherbed, they spend a
year or two or more discovering their specialized skills are worth half of what they'd
thought, and when they land a job, they're expected to cook the books or sign off on dodgy
products, acting as designated corporate fall guys in the event of an investigation.
When I was in university there was no Leftist programming. People were
there to become engineers, IT specialists, doctors, nurses, businessmen, accounting.
You maybe had to take an "African-American studies" course but that was just to get enough
credits to graduate. Also, by the time most people went to college (when I did from 93-98) they were adults
with opinions. Sales is a diminishing field now with the internet.
@jim jones A shrewd observation is my immediate reaction. Most likely true of the
organised institutional left which, when it's old product no longer sells doesn't want to
declare bankruptcy and shut up shop.
"Government exists to spend. The purpose of government is to serve the general welfare of the
citizens, not just the military-industrial complex and the financial class. Didn't we have a
stimulus, oh, eight years ago? It was tiny and has not been entirely spent. As Yellen
implied, we need more spending of the non-military kind (what Barney Frank memorably called
"weaponized Keynesianism" doesn't stimulate)."
This is what has been missing for over 40 years in the US, government's role in the
economy. When any politician brings up the fact that it's time we used fiscal policy as it
was designed, neoliberals have a socialism meltdown. Both parties have been taken over by the
Kochtopus, The libertarian fascist ideology that hides behind the term "neoliberalism". The
ultimate goal of this zombie ideology that was thoroughly discredited in 2008 but continues
to roam the earth is to replace nations with privately owned cities. This experiment was
going on in Honduras, following the 2009 coup, until it was finally ended by a SC ruling that
it was unconstitutional.
"In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property
lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real
property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers – not
legal and illegal immigrants." ~ Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute
This is the struggle – the struggle to maintain public space on a planet that was
never meant to be owned in the first place.
Among the many untruths told about Donald Trump is the claim that his is not a movement of
ideas. As a candidate in 2016, Trump may not have spoken the language of the policy wonks. But
unlike those Republicans who did, his view of the world was not a stale ideological cliche. It
was instead refreshingly frank: about a foreign policy that couldn't win the wars it waged, an
economy that imperiled middle- and working-class America, and an immigration regime only the
employers of illegal nannies could love. Trump recognized reality, and that drew to his cause
independent-minded intellectuals who had also done so. The Trump movement suffers not from a
dearth of ideas or thinkers, but a dearth of institutions. It has thinkers but no think
tank.
F.H. Buckley, Foundation Professor at George Mason University's Scalia School of Law, is one
of its thinkers. His new book, The Republican Workers Party , comes from a publisher --
Encounter -- led by another, Roger Kimball. Buckley is no relation to William F., who as
writer, editor, and Firing Line host did more than anyone to make conservatism a byword
for eloquence in the latter half of the 20th century. But much as the other Buckley remade the
Right by founding National Review in 1955, this one aims to bring about a profound
change of heart and mind among conservatives. He wants to make good on the promise of the GOP
as a party for American workers.
It was a promise made right from the beginning, when in the mid-19th century the Republicans
were the party of free labor against the slavocracy. But the GOP and the country lost their
way. Today, in Buckley's telling, a self-perpetuating "New Class" of administrators and
mandarins runs the country from perches of privilege in the academy and nonprofit sector, as
well as the media, government, and much of the business world. Republicans of the Never Trump
variety are as much a part of this ruling caste as Clinton-Schumer-Pelosi Democrats are. And if
you might wonder whether someone in Buckley's position isn't part of the same professional
stratum, his answer is that he very much aspires to be a traitor to his class, just as Donald
Trump is.
Trump, writes Buckley, is "unlike anything we've seen before, for the simple reason that
he's up against something that we've never seen before: a liberalism that has given up on the
American Dream of a mobile and classless society." Those who today style themselves as
progressives are nothing of the sort -- they are not revolutionaries but the new aristocrats:
"They are Bourbons who seek to pass themselves off as Jacobins. They have bought into a radical
leftism, while resisting the call to unseat a patrician class that leftists in the past would
have opposed."
This is an eloquent explanation for an inversion that has puzzled many observers. Today's
Left, at least the mainstream Left represented by the Democratic Party, is now
establishmentarian. The Republican Right is now populist, if not downright revolutionary. "When
the upper class is composed of liberals who support socialist measures to keep us immobile and
preserve their privileged position," Buckley argues, "class warfare to free up our economy by
tearing down an aristocracy is conservative and just, as well as popular."
Buckley came to these conclusions before the rise of Donald Trump. They are at the heart of
his last two books, The Way Back and The Republic of Virtue . He recognized in
Trump a force for salutary change. So in early 2016, he signed up as a speechwriter for the
candidate and his family. At one point, this attracted unwanted attention: a speech delivered
by Donald Trump Jr. was found to have plagiarized an article in . Except it wasn't plagiarism:
Buckley was the author of both. I was editor of the magazine at the time, and Buckley is
correct when he says in The Republican Workers Party that I enjoyed the non-scandal --
because it brought attention to an essay I thought deserved a brighter spotlight than it had
initially received.
A further disclosure or two is in order: I also published some of the material that appears
in The Republican Workers Party in the journal I now edit, Modern Age , and I'm
thanked in the book's acknowledgments. My warm words for Buckley's last volume are quoted on
the dust jacket of this one. The review you're reading now is honest, but subjective -- I'm a
part of the story. Only a small one, however: Buckley reveals many details of the Trump
campaign and post-election transition that I had never heard before, including how Michael
Anton came to be hired and fired.
The campaign memoir is intriguing in its own right, but it's in the service of the book's
larger purpose. I've known Buckley to refer to himself as an economic determinist, and he's
also said that the future will be decided by a fight between the right-wing Marxists and the
left-wing Marxists. But those are exaggerations, and The Republican Workers Party isn't
primarily about economics: quite the contrary, it's about solidarity, humanity, and the
Christian spirit of brotherhood. The book is informed by a religious sensibility as much as it
is by policy acumen. But it's a religious sensibility that addresses the soul through material
conditions. Buckley is critical of attempts at a "moral rearmament crusade" that amounts to
shaming the poor and blaming them for their own condition.
On this, Buckley is at odds with what movement conservatism has promoted over the last
30-odd years, which is a pure moralism alongside a theoretically pure free-market economism,
each restricted to its own categorical silo. An economic conservative or libertarian might thus
approach Buckley's book with the trepeditation of a holy Inquisitor fearful that a friend will
be found committing heresy. But there is little in these pages that a free-market conservative
can quibble with at the policy level: rather it is the spirit in which economic conservatives
conduct politics that Buckley criticizes. He is even on the side of conservative orthodoxy,
more or less, when it comes to tariffs. He's a free trader at heart, though not a dogmatic
one.
On immigration, he favors a more Canadian-like, points-based system that would prioritize
skills, with a view toward providing maximum benefit for our current citizens, especially the
least well off among them. The present system "admits people who underbid native-born Americans
for low-skill jobs, while refusing entry to people with greater skills who would make life
better for all Americans." Canada lets in many more immigrants in proportion to its population
than the United States does, but "Canadians see an immigration policy designed to benefit the
native-born, so they don't think their government wants to stick it to them," even when it
comes to generous admission of refugees.
Buckley speaks from experience about immigration and Canada -- he was born, brought up, and
lived most of his life there before becoming a U.S. citizen in 2014. Like Alexander Hamilton,
whose Caribbean origins gave him a view of America's national economy unprejudiced by sectional
interests, Buckley's Canadian background gives him an independent vantage from which to
consider our characteristic shibboleths unsparingly. The separation of powers, for one, is a
dismal failure that "has given us two or more different Republican parties: a presidential
party, which today is the Republican Workers Party, but also congressional Republican parties
rooted in the issues and preference of local members. There's the Freedom Caucus composed of
Tea Party members, the more moderate Main Street Partnership and whatever maverick senators
were thinking this morning." Federalism too is a mixed bag. These are themes touched lightly
upon here but worked out in detail in such earlier Buckley books as The Once and Future
King .
That's not to say there's something alien about Buckley's ideas. He's an heir to Viscount
Bolingbroke, as were many of the Founding Fathers. (He contrasts Bolingbroke's disinterested
ideal of a patriot king, for example, with the identity-driven politics of the Democratic
Party.) But Buckley is also an heir to George Grant and the Anglo-Canadian tradition of Red
Toryism, a form of conservatism that does not bother itself with anti-government formulas that
never seem to reduce the size of government one iota anyway. Buckley's heroes are "leaders such
as Disraeli, Lord Randolph Churchill (Winston's father) and even Winston Churchill himself."
"They were conservative" but "they supported generous social welfare policies."
The policies that Buckley is most concerned about, however, are those that generate social
mobility. Education is thus high on his agenda. He is a strong supporter of vouchers and school
choice and points again to Canada as a success story for private schools receiving public
funds. But America is a rather different country, and as popular as vouchers are on the Right,
some of us can't help but wonder whether they would lead to the same outcome in primary and
secondary education that federal financial aid has produced in higher education. With the money
comes regulation, and usually soaring prices, too.
But Buckley is right that the defects of our present education system go a long way toward
explaining the rise of the new status class, and other countries have found answers to the
questions that perplex American politics -- or some of them at least. More adventurous thinking
is required if anything is to be saved of the American dream of mobility, in place of the
nightmare of division into static castes of winners and losers.
Libertarian economists and blame-the-poor moralizers are not the only figures on the Right
Buckley criticizes. He has no patience for the barely disguised Nietzscheanism of certain "East
Coast" Straussians, who imagine themselves to be philosopher-princes, educating a class of
obedient gentlemen who will in turn dominate a mass of purely appetitive worker bees and cannon
fodder.
Buckley's book is an argument against right-wing heartlessness. Its title may conjure in
some minds phantoms of the National Socialist German Workers Party or America's own penny-ante
white nationalist Traditionalist Workers Party, on which the media has lavished a certain
amount of attention in recent years. But fascists are not traditionalists, workers, or even,
properly speaking, socialists -- they simply steal whatever terms happen to be popular. Buckley
refuses to concede their claims and appease them.
He is eloquent in his American -- not white -- nationalism. "There isn't much room for white
nationalism in American culture," he writes, "For alongside baseball and apple pie, it includes
Langston Hughes and Amy Tan, Tex-Mex food and Norah Jones. You can be an American if you don't
enjoy them, but you might be a wee bit more American if you do." It's populism, not
nationalism, that he considers a toxic term, its genealogy tracing to figures like "Pitchfork
Ben" Tillman, a Jim Crow proponent and defender of lynch mobs.
He is right to defend the honor of nationalism, but Buckley may be mistaken in his animus
toward "populism," a word that for most people is more likely to bring to mind William Jennings
Bryan than the Ku Klux Klan.
Buckley's project in The Republican Workers Party parallels on the Right the task
taken up by Mark Lilla on the Left in last year's The Once and Future Liberal . Like
Lilla, Buckley wants to see a revival of mid-20th-century liberalism. For both, politics is
ultimately class-based, not identity-based. Lilla trains his fire on the identity-parsing Left,
while Buckley rebukes the Right for failing to fight the class war -- or rather, for fighting
on the wrong side, that of the self-serving New Class, the aristocracy of education,
connections, and right-thinking opinion.
This may seem nostalgic, but it's not: Buckley does not expect a return to JFK or Camelot,
even if, like Lilla, he once borrowed a title from T.H. White. The 21st century can only give
us a new and very different Kennedy or Disraeli -- an insurgent from the Right to retake the
center. In Donald Trump, F.H. Buckley found such a figure, but a movement needs a program as
well as a leader, and the program has to be grounded in an idea of humanity and the limits of
politics. The nation defines those limits, and while not every Trump supporter will agree with
Buckley's policy thought in all its specifics, the spirit of Buckley's endeavor represents what
is finest in the Trump moment, and what is best in conservatism, too.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review.
Neither the Kremlin nor the White House had confirmed Bolton's remarks as of this afternoon.
Putin, in Russia this week with Bolton, held out hope of eventually repairing his relationship
with America, but appeared frustrated at the current pace of progress.
"As far as I can remember, the U.S. seal depicts an eagle on one side holding 13 arrows,"
Putin told Bolton. "And on the other side, an olive branch with 13 olives. Here's the question,
'Did your eagle already eat all the olives and only the arrows are left?'"
"Hopefully I'll have some answers for you," replied Bolton. "But I didn't bring any more
olives." Putin said in turn: "That's what I thought."
By the time of the potential visit, the current Washington-Moscow dispute over whether the
U.S. should withdraw from the INF nuclear treaty could be resolved. Like so much in the Trump
era, this has created strange alliances. Certainly the move has roiled a Moscow that expected a
more amenable Washington led by Trump. The Bolton proposal has also won plaudits from
neoconservative Never Trumpers.
"On the INF Treaty, Trump finally gets something right," says Max
Boot in The Washington Post . "By withdrawing from the INF Treaty, Trump can now put
similar pressure on Pyongyang,"
adds Marc Thiessen, a George W. Bush speechwriter who is far more supportive of Trump.
Trump has so far pursued a considerably less hardline approach to Kim Jong-un in the second
year of his presidency than he did in his first, to the quiet relief of those who favor a
restrained American foreign policy. The U.S. and North Korea came closer to a military exchange
in 2017 than is commonly understood.
Former national security advisor H.R. McMaster had been preoccupied by the idea of a
"bloody nose" attack. The prospective plan was considered seriously enough by the
administration that Victor Cha, an establishment Republican, withdrew his name
Matthew Walther The failure and delusions of the adults in the room 
Matthew Walther The 2020 Democratic frontrunner is a Republican
Saudi Update October 2018
http://crudeoilpeak.info/saudi-update-october-2018