Free market is possible only under strict government regulation. Without government regulation free market quickly deteriorates
into the law of jungles. Such a paradox ;-)
And if financial oligarchy gets to power as they got via coup d'état in the USA in late 7th, it is only a matter of time before the
society collapses. They are very destructive to the society at large. Probably more so then organized crime. But wait. They actually
can be viewed as special type of organized prime as is "The best way to rob the bank is to own it".
If you think that Yeltsin privatization (see
Harvard Mafia, Andrei Shleifer and the economic rape
of Russia) and rise of organized crime in Russia are two distinct phenomenon, think again.
Neoliberalism which declare profit as single and only moral value is in reality deeply
interconnected with organized crime both in methods and personalities. This is not very
noticed in the USA, but quite so in, say, Ukraine.
It's not accidental that Forbes
magazine recently placed two Mexicans, Carlos Slim and Joaquín Guzmán, high on their list of the most
powerful people in the world. Carlos Slim is the world’s third-richest man and CEO of a telecommunications
company and Joaquín Guzmán is the leader of the Sinaloa drug cartel.
Organized crime. This phrase is now a precise synonym for big-banking in the United States. These Big Banks commit big crimes;
they commit small crimes. They cheat their own clients; they swindle outsiders. They break virtually every financial law on the
books. What do all these crimes have in common? The Big Banks commit all these crimes
again
and
again and
again
– with utter impunity.
These fraud factories commit their serial mega-crimes, year after year, because the Big Banks know that they will never, ever
be punished. On rare occasions, their crimes have been so egregious that U.S. ‘justice’ officials could no longer pretend to be
oblivious to them. In such cases, there was a token prosecution, there was a settlement where the law-breaking banks didn’t even
have to acknowledge their own criminality, and there was a microscopic fine – which didn’t even force the felonious financial
institutions to disgorge all of their profits from these crimes.
Criminal sanctions, by definition, are supposed to deter criminal conduct. The token prosecutions against U.S.
Big Banks didn’t deter Big Bank crime, they encouraged it. But even these wrist-slaps were becoming embarrassing for this crime
syndicate, so they dealt with this problem. The Big Bank
crime syndicate told its lackeys in the U.S.
‘justice’ department that they were not allowed to prosecute one of its tentacles, ever again.
The lackeys, as always, obeyed their Masters, and issued
a
new proclamation. The U.S. ‘Justice’ Department would never prosecute a U.S. Big Bank ever again – no matter what crimes it
committed, no matter how large the crimes, no matter how many times the same Big Banks committed the same crimes. Complete, legal
immunity; totally above the law. A literal culture of crime.
What happens when you create a culture of crime in (big) banking? Not only the banks break laws – with impunity – their bank
employees do so as well. Case in point:
Warren Buffett’s
favorite Big Bank – Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo employees came up with
a
good idea for boosting their salaries: stealing money directly out of the accounts of the bank’s clients.
Consider how large this crime became, in just one of these tentacles of organized crime.
L.A City Attorney Mike Feuer announced a $185 million settlement reached with Wells Fargo, after thousands
of bank employees siphoned funds from their customers to open phony checking and savings accounts raking
in millions in fraudulent fees.[emphasis mine]
Thousands of bank employees stealing millions of dollars from bank customers, in tiny, little increments, again and again and
again. But the story gets much worse. Why was a lowly city attorney involved with the prosecution of this organized crime?
So where is the FBI? Where is the Department of Justice? How about California Attorney General Kamala Harris? Too busy
campaigning for the Senate to notice? How about L.A. District Attorney Jackie Larry?
Only City Attorney Mike Feuer took action, and he only has the authority to prosecute misdemeanors…
There are only two ways in which the non-action of the U.S. pseudo-justice system can be explained:
All of the layers of “justice” above the City Attorney, are completely bought-off, and refuse to prosecute one of the
corporate fronts of their (real) Masters.
All of the layers of “justice” above the City Attorney considered this systemic crime by Wells Fargo’s employees to be
nothing more than a misdemeanour.
Take your pick. The U.S. pseudo-justice system is used to seeing so many multi-billion dollar mega-crimes
being committed by these fraud factories that the systemic crime at Wells Fargo (which was ‘only’ in the $millions) didn’t even
attract their attention. Or, the entire U.S. pseudo-justice system is completely bought-off and corrupt – and they
refuse to prosecute Big Bank organized crime.
A culture of crime.
It gets still worse. Thousands of Wells Fargo employees stole millions of dollars, from
countless clients. They were caught. But not even one banker was sent to jail. In a real justice system, systemic crime of this
nature would/could only be prosecuted in one of three ways. Either every Wells Fargo criminal would be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law (given the egregious nature of the crime), or Wells Fargo management would be prosecuted – because they would
have/should have known about this crime-wave. Or else both.
Bankers stealing money, directly and brazenly, right out of customer accounts, but no one goes to jail? A culture of crime.
Understand that endemic, cultural changes of this nature don’t originate at the bottom of the corporate ladder. They originate
at the top. In the case of the Wall Street crime syndicate; we already know that their management personnel are criminals,
because they haveadmitted to being
criminals.
Many Wall Street executives says [sic] wrongdoing is necessary: survey
If the ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes were to go out with his lantern in search of an honest man today, a survey of
Wall Street executives on workplace conduct suggests he might have to look elsewhere.
A quarter of Wall Street executives see wrongdoing as a key to success, according to a survey by whistleblower law firm
Labaton Sucharow released on Tuesday.
In a survey of 500 senior executives in the United States and the UK [New York and
London], 26 percent of respondents said they had observed or had firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace, while
24 percent said they believed financial services professionals may need to engage in unethical or illegal conduct to
be successful… [emphasis mine]
One-quarter of Big Bank management admitted that they “need” to commit crimes. A culture of crime. More needs to be said about
the rampant, disgusting criminality among upper management in the Big Banks of the U.S. (and UK).
A known whistleblower was conducting a public survey, asking known criminals how many of them were engaging in criminal
behavior. What percentage of respondents would lie when answering such a survey? Three-quarters sounds about
right. One-quarter of Wall Street executives admitted that committing crimes was a way of life. The other three-quarters lied
about their criminal acts.
Monkey see; monkey do. The lower level foot soldiers see their Bosses breaking laws, with impunity, on a daily basis. Their
reaction, at Wells Fargo? “Me too.”
Most if not all of the Wall Street fraud factories conduct detailed “personality testing” on their bank personnel. Are they
looking to weed-out those with criminal (if not psychopathic) inclinations? Of course not. They conduct this personality testing
to find which employees have no reservations about engaging in criminal conduct – so they can be fast-tracked for
promotion.
There is no other way in which the systemic criminality of senior banking personnel can be reconciled with the detailed
personality-testing in which they participated, in order to reach that level of management. The Wall Street fraud factories look
for the most amoral criminals which they can find. And with the exorbitant, ludicrous “compensation” they award to these
criminals for their systemic crimes, they end up with (literally) the best criminals that money can buy.
A culture of crime.
As a final note; the U.S. system of pretend-justice already has a powerful weapon in its arsenal to fight organized crime: the
“RICO” act. This anti-racketeering
statute was created for one, precise purpose: to not merely prosecute/punish organized crime, but to literallydismantle
the crime infrastructure which supports the organized crime.
Not only does the statute confer strong (almost limitless) powers in gathering evidence of organized crime, it also permits
mass seizures of assets – anything/everything connected to the organized crime of the entity(ies) in question. In the case of the
Big Bank crime syndicate, where all of its operations are directly/indirectly tied into criminal operations of one form or
another, if RICO was turned loose on these fraud factories, by the time the dust had settled there would be nothing left.
Oh yes. If the U.S. ‘Justice’ Department ever went “RICO” on U.S. Big Banks, lots and lots and lots of bankers would go to
prison, for a very, long time.
Gangster Capitalism: The United States and the Globalization of Organized Crime
Everyone knows what organized crime is. Each year dozens of feature films, hundreds of books, and
thousands of news stories explain to an eager public that organized crime is what gangsters do.
Closely knit, ethnically distinct, and ruthlessly efficient, these mafias control the drugs trade,
people trafficking and other serious crimes. If only states would take the threat seriously and
recognize the global nature of modern organized crime, the FBI's success against the Italian mafia
could be replicated throughout the world. The wicked trade in addictive drugs could be brought to
a halt.
The trouble is, as Woodiwiss demonstrates in shocking and surprising detail, what everyone
knows about organized crime is pretty much completely wrong. In reality the most important figures
in organized crime are employees of multinational companies, politicians and bureaucrats. Gangsters
are certainly a problem, but much of their strength comes from attempts to prohibit the market for
certain drugs.
Even here they are minor players when compared with the intelligence and law enforcement
agencies that selectively enforce prohibition and profit from it. Woodiwiss shows how respectable
businessmen and revered statesmen have seized these opportunities in an orgy of fraud and illegal
violence...
What makes "Gangster Capitalism" so worthwhile is that it helps in understanding what has led
us to the 2007-8 financial meltdown. As the book shows, like during the 1920's, deregulation led
the way for powerful companies to allow the very wealthy to get wealthier at the expense of average
people by using poor working conditions, low wages, etc, plus at the same time supporting supposedly
moral movements (against gambling, alcohol, drugs, etc) which mainly served the purpose of
making these trades more profitable to crooks and therefore created rampant gangsterism there.
The result was such a society wracked with gangsterism at all levels, but because most people
felt they were prospering, few complained.
But, then it all collapsed with the 1929 crash and resulting Depression, which led the way for
FDR and the New Deal programs which increased regulation of corporations, repeal of Prohibition,
etc. Though the Depression lingered until WWII, the New Deal was successful in restructuring our
laws and public infrastructure to create a better footing for the prosperity which would follow.
The book effectively traces how much of this regulation was reduced piece by piece, beginning
in earnest with Nixon, using Cold War fears to tilt the nation toward more corporate power and away
from reform, support of right-wing dictators around the world, re-energizing a 'moral crusade' especially
by beginning the War on Drugs, thereby making the illegal drug trade super profitable, etc.
The nation had shifted Right and even Democratic presidents like Carter who was instrumental
in deregulating industry and Clinton who signed into law the repeal of Glass--Steagle weren't able
to stop the shift. Then, the 'Gangster Capitalism" went on steroids with G. W. Bush.
By 2003, corporate taxes only amounted to 7% of revenues, while payroll taxes amounted to 40%.
Of note, the book makes clear it is opportunity which leads to much crime, so the approach of
massive deregulation of corporations, plus focusing on arrests and imprisonment for victimless crimes
ends up with the wrong results, more entrenched crime, even allowing corporations to capitalize
on a prison industry.
The book is also good at highlighting how corporations and outright gangsters were able to corrupt
legal drugs (price-fixing), tobacco, asbestos, body parts, autos (Pintos), etc. Some other things
in the book, of note: Hamid Karzai included drug traffickers in his Afghan administration.
And, our support of Suharto (Indonesia), Mobuto (the Congo), and Marcos (the Philippines) allowed
'looting' of these countries.
A corrupt financial infrastructure included the BCCI bank and offshore banking to evade taxes
also developed. Plus, laundering money from illegal arms sales, drugs, and so many other illegal
activities passed through our financial system.
The book is definitely tilted toward a liberal way of looking at things, therefore it doesn't
go into the good things about capitalism, but there are disturbing patterns which are important
to understand, and this book does that very well.
Despite the fact that I was predisposed to agree with many of the author's views, this book was
a huge disappointment. First, the basic premises:
American business enterprise is singularly corrupt;
Most of the crime that Americans suffer from is corporate crime;
American methods of fighting crime focus on lurid fantasies of underworld conspiracy;
The USA exports criminality through its foreign & trade policies.
Each of these premises could have been, and in other venues have been, well-argued. The first
three suffer from a lack of generally accepted, objective measures, but experts on criminology have
overcome worse obstacles. What we get instead is an unfocused, rambling listing of claims (plausible,
but very poorly documented) about the criminal underworld, anecdotes about corporate crime, and
extreme statements. No doubt "legitimate" business enterprise does rip off more money from customers
each year than do gangsters or mafiosi; but the latter also account for a tiny fraction of the total
US labor force. And comparing deaths from industrial accidents to mob hits is just over the top.
Woodiwiss says that the book "had its inception during a seminar series on transnational organized
crime run by Adam Edwards and Peter Gill... Adam and Peter put together several of the best academic
researchers from Europe and North America...." Yet the book is exasperatingly badly substantiated.
I noticed almost no original research. Woodiwiss's footnotes, which--like cops--are never around
when you need them (viz., when he is actually saying something that requires documentation), are
almost exclusively from articles in the *Guardian* or from other sensational exposes. Radical literature
has its place, of course, but saying, "US capitalism is just like organized crime... see, it says
so in 'The New Left Review'" is just a harangue, not evidence.
The back cover declaims: "..[T]he position of large multinational corporations...actually
provide the most enticing opportunities for illegal profit...Gangster Capitalism shows how
respectable businessmen and revered statesmen have seized these opportunities in an orgy of fraud
and illegal violence that would leave the most hardened mafiosi speechless."
In fact, it's a disappointing pile of clippings. With the exception of his claims--again, plausible
but unsubstantiated--you are not going to find any surprises here.
As I mentioned, he attacks conventional wisdom regarding the mafia and J. Edgar Hoover (who comes
off surprisingly well); unfortunately, Woodiwiss offers almost no support for those contentions
that are likely to be controversial. For example, on p.78 he mentions President [Nixon]'s Advisory
Council on Executive Organization, "Organized Crime Strike Force Report" [1969], which included
a vaguely worded remark that the reliance on legal sanctions to fight drug abuse was actually causing
organized crime to flourish." This is footnoted. Then he says that Nixon was so horrified by this
that he ruthlessly suppressed the report. This is not footnoted. The next pargagraph (p.49) includes
a quote from a law enforcement officer claiming that gambling arrests were made just to pad the
arrest numbers; this is footnoted. The next paragraph declares that gambling is no more corrupt
than the rest of the economy. A surprising observation, it is predictably not footnoted.
The result: lots of footnotes documenting that water is a bit on the damp side, but nothing to
support the controversial stuff. Only a small part is devoted to crime; the rest is a paste-up job
from two dozen radical critiques of the USA. Anything from the 1971 ditching of the gold exchange
standard to the various covert activities of the CIA are brought up, with no more compelling a connection
to Woodiwiss' original point than being bad things that Americans did.
< are so insipid (it calls for "fair trade" with no further specification of how
that would be any different... capital punishment for corporations--evidently Mr. Woodiwiss has
never heard of 'money laundering,' in which a vehicle corporation commits suicide), that it is pointless
to spend any time on them. Woodiwiss needs to actually learn something about economics; ironically
enough, for someone who claims business is closely tied to crime, he knows almost nothing about
it. He needs to know, and say what he knows, about law enforcement and business practices abroad,
so he can make a comparison. And finally, he needs to actually learn how to write.
Few people, apart from specialists, may have heard of the JCPOA Joint Commission.
That’s the group in charge of a Sisyphean task: the attempt to revive the
2015 Iran nuclear deal through a series of negotiations in Vienna.
The Iranian negotiating team was back in Vienna yesterday, led by Deputy Foreign Minister
Seyed Abbas Araghchi. Shadowplay starts with the fact the Iranians negotiate with the other
members of the P+1 â€" Russia, China, France, UK and Germany â€" but not
directly with the US.
That’s quite something: after all, it was the Trump administration that
blew up the JCPOA. There is an American delegation in Vienna, but they only talk with the
Europeans.
Shadowplay goes turbo when every Viennese coffee table knows about
Tehran’s red lines: either it’s back to the original
JCPOA as it was agreed in Vienna in 2015 and then ratified by the UN Security Council, or
nothing.
Araghchi, mild-mannered and polite, has had to go on the record once again to stress that
Tehran will leave if the talks veer towards “bullyingâ€, time
wasting or even a
step-by-step ballroom dance, which is time wasting under different terminology.
Neither flat out optimistic nor pessimistic, he remains, let’s say,
cautiously upbeat, at least in public: “We are not disappointed and we will
do our job. Our positions are very clear and firm. The sanctions must be lifted, verified and
then Iran must return to its commitments.â€
So, at least in the thesis, the debate is still on. Araghchi: “There are
two types of U.S. sanctions against Iran. First, categorized or so-called divisional sanctions,
such as oil, banking and insurance, shipping, petrochemical, building and automobile sanctions,
and second, sanctions against real and legal individuals.â€
“Second†is the key issue. There’s
absolutely no guarantee the US Congress will lift most or at least a significant part of these
sanctions.
Everyone in Washington knows it â€" and the American delegation knows it.
When the Foreign Ministry in Tehran, for instance, says that 60% or 70% has been agreed
upon, that’s code for lifting of divisional sanctions. When it comes to
“secondâ€, Araghchi has to be evasive: “There
are complex issues in this area that we are examiningâ€.
Now compare it with the assessment of informed Iranian insiders in Washington such as
nuclear policy expert
Seyed Hossein Mousavian : they’re more like pessimistic realists.
That takes into consideration the non-negotiable red lines established by Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Khamenei himself. Plus non-stop pressure by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are
all JCPOA-adverse.
But then there’s extra shadowplay. Israeli intel has already notified the
security cabinet that a deal most certainly will be reached in Vienna. After all, the narrative
of a successful deal is already being constructed as a foreign policy victory by the
Biden-Harris administration â€" or, as cynics prefer, Obama-Biden 3.0.
Meanwhile, Iranian diplomacy remains on overdrive. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is visiting
Qatar and Iraq, and has
already met with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim al Thani.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, virtually at the end of his term before the June
presidential elections, always goes back to the same point: no more US sanctions;
Iran’s verification; then Iran will return to its
“nuclear obligationsâ€.
The Foreign Ministry has even released a quite detailed fact sheet once again
stressing the need to remove “all sanctions imposed, re-imposed and
re-labeled since January 20, 2017â€.
The window of opportunity for a deal won’t last long. Hardliners in
Tehran couldn’t care less. At least 80% of Tehran members of Parliament are
now hardliners. The next President most certainly will be a hardliner. Team
Rouhani’s efforts have been branded a failure since the onset of
Trump’s “maximum pressure†campaign.
Hardliners are already in post-JCPOA mode.
That fateful Fateh
What none of the actors in the shadowplay can admit is that the revival of the JCPOA pales
compared to the real issue: the power of Iranian missiles.
In the original 2015 negotiations in Vienna â€" follow them in my Persian
Miniatures e-book â€" Obama-Biden 2.0 did everything in their power to include
missiles in the deal.
Every grain of sand in the Negev desert knows that Israel will go no holds barred to retain
its nuclear weapon primacy in the Middle East. Via a spectacular kabuki, the fact that Israel
is a nuclear power happens to remain “invisible†to most of
world public opinion.
While Khamenei has issued a fatwa clearly stating that producing, stockpiling and using
weapons of mass destruction â€" nuclear included â€" is haram (banned by
Islam), Israel’s leadership feels free to order stunts such as the sabotage
via Mossad of the (civilian) Iranian nuclear complex at Natanz.
The head of Iran’s Parliament Energy Committee, Fereydoun Abbasi Davani,
even accused Washington and London of being accomplices to the sabotage of Natanz, as they
arguably supplied intel to Tel Aviv.
Yet now a lone missile is literally exploding a great deal of the shadowplay.
On April 22, in the dead of night before dawn, a Syrian missile exploded only 30 km away
from the ultra-sensitive Israeli nuclear reactor of Dimona. The official â€" and
insistent â€" Israeli spin: this was an “errantâ€.
Well, not really.
Here â€" third video from the top
â€" is footage of the quite significant explosion. Also significantly, Tel Aviv
remained absolutely mum when it comes to offering a missile proof of ID. Was it an old Soviet
1967 SA-5? Or, rather more likely, a 2012 Iranian Fateh-110 short range surface-to-surface,
manufactured in Syria as the M-600 , and also possessed by Hezbollah?
A Fateh family tree can be seen in the attached chart. The inestimable Elijah Magnier has
posed some very
good questions about the Dimona near-hit. I complemented it with a quite enlightening
discussion with physicists, with input by a military intel expert.
The Fateh-110 operates as a classic ballistic missile, until the moment the warhead starts
maneuvering to evade ABM defenses. Precision is up to 10 meters, nominally 6 meters. So it hit
exactly where it was supposed to hit. Israel officially confirmed that the missile was not
intercepted â€" after a trajectory of roughly 266 km.
This opens a brand new can of worms. It implies that the performance of the much hyped and
recently
upgraded Iron Dome is far from stellar â€" and talk about an euphemism. The
Fateh flew so low that Iron Dome could not identify it.
The inevitable conclusion is this was a message/warning combo. From Damascus. With a
personal stamp from Bashar al-Assad, who had to clear such a sensitive missile launch. A
message/warning delivered via Iranian missile technology fully available to the Axis of
Resistance â€" proving that regional actors have serious stealth capability.
It’s crucial to remember that when Tehran dispatched a volley of
deliberately older Fateh-313 versions at the US base Ayn al-Assad in Iraq, as a response to the
assassination of Gen Soleimani in January 2020, the American radars went blank.
Iranian missile technology as top strategic deterrence. Now that’s the
shadowplay that turns Vienna into a sideshow.
Yves here. Tom Engelhardt tries to get his arms around US weapons sales and use. The figures
are depressing, particularly in comparison to those of our nominal peers. And the intensity of
our fixation with killing has only grown only over time. Just look at TV. In its early, tamer
days, frontier shows like The Rifleman and Gunsmoke gave weapons top billing. Now in our
post-Vietnam, post Archie Bunker of greater realism, police shows have gory gunplay as their
prime offering, with big side portions of blowing things up and car chases/crashes. We even
have a prime time show, The Blacklist, where the lead is assured to shoot at least one person
every episode. Better to look at the fictionalized version, where we know no actors were hurt,
than clips of the real thing from the Middle East, which are oddly absent from news shows.
By the time you read this piece, it will already be out of date. The reason's simple enough.
No matter what mayhem I describe, with so much all-American weaponry in this world of ours,
there's no way to keep up. Often, despite the headlines that go with mass killings here,
there's almost no way even to know.
On this planet of ours, America is the emperor of weaponry, even if in ways we normally tend
not to put together. There's really no question about it. The all-American powers-that-be and
the arms makers that go with them dream up, produce, and sell weaponry, domestically and
internationally, in an unmatched fashion. You'll undoubtedly be shocked, shocked to learn that
the
top five arms makers on the planet -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon,
and General Dynamics -- are
all located in the United States.
Put another way, we're a killer nation, a mass-murder machine, slaughter central. And as
we've known since the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, there
could be far worse to come. After all, in the overheated dreams of both those weapons makers
and Pentagon planners, slaughter-to-be has long been imagined on a planetary scale, right down
to the latest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) being created by Northrop Grumman at
the cost of at least $100 billion. Each of those future arms of ultimate destruction is slated
to be " the
length of a bowling lane " and the nuclear charge that it carries will be at least 20 times
more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. That missile will someday be capable
of traveling 6,000 miles and killing hundreds of thousands of people each. (And the Air Force
is planning to order 600 of them.)
By the end of this decade, that new ICBM is slated to join an unequaled American nuclear
arsenal of -- at this moment -- 3,800 warheads . And
with that in mind, let's back up a moment.
Have Gun -- Will Travel
Before we head abroad or think more about weaponry fit to destroy the planet (or at least
human life on it), let's just start right here at home. After all, we live in a country whose
citizens are armed to their all-too-labile fingertips with more guns of every advanced sort
than might once have been imaginable. The figures are stunning. Even before the pandemic hit
and gun purchases soared to record
levels -- about
23 million of them (a 64% increase over 2019 sales) -- American civilians were reported to
possess
almost 400 million firearms. That adds up to about 40% of all such weaponry in the hands of
civilians globally, or more than the
next 25 countries combined.
And if that doesn't stagger you, note that the versions of those weapons in public hands are
becoming ever more militarized and powerful, ever more AR-15 semi-automatic rifles, not .22s.
And keep in mind as well that, over the years, the death toll from those weapons in this
country has grown staggeringly large. As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof
wrote
recently , "More Americans have died from guns just since 1975, including suicides, murders
and accidents (more than 1.5 million), than in all the wars in United States history, dating
back to the Revolutionary War (about 1.4 million)."
In my childhood, one of my favorite TV programs was called Have Gun -- Will Travel
. Its central character was a highly romanticized armed mercenary in the Old West and its
theme song -- still
lodged in my head (where so much else is unlodging these days) -- began:
"Have gun will travel is the card of a man.
A knight without armor in a savage land.
His fast gun for hire heeds the calling wind.
A soldier of fortune is the man called Paladin."
Staggering numbers of Americans are now ever grimmer versions of Paladin. Thanks to a
largely unregulated gun industry , they're armed like no other citizenry on the planet, not
even -- in a distant second place
-- the civilians of Yemen, a country torn by endless war. That TV show's title could now be
slapped on our whole culture, whether we're talking about our modern-day Paladins traveling to
a set of Atlanta spas ; a
chain grocery store
in Boulder, Colorado; a real-estate office
in Orange, California; a convenience
store near Baltimore; or a home
in Rock Hill, South Carolina.
Remember how the National Rifle Association has always defended
the right of Americans to own weapons at least in part by citing this country's hunting
tradition? Well, these days, startling numbers of Americans, armed to the teeth, have joined
that hunting crew. Their game of choice isn't deer or even wolves and
grizzly bears , but that ultimate prey, other human beings -- and all too often themselves.
(In 2020, not only did a record
nearly 20,000 Americans die from gun violence, but another 24,000 used guns to commit
suicide.)
As the rate of Covid-19 vaccination began to rise to remarkable levels in this country and
ever more public places reopened, the first mass public killings (defined as four or more
deaths in a public place) of the pandemic period -- in Atlanta and Boulder -- hit the news
big-time. The thought, however, that the American urge to use weapons in a murderous fashion
had in any way lessened or been laid to rest, even briefly, thanks to Covid-19, proved a
fantasy of the first order.
At a time when so many public places like schools were closed or their use limited indeed,
if you took as your measuring point not mass public killings but mass shootings (defined as
four or more people wounded or killed), the pandemic year of 2020 proved to be a record 12
months of armed chaos. In fact, such mass shootings actually surged by 47%. As USA
Today
recounted , "In 2020, the United States reported 611 mass shooting events that resulted in
513 deaths and 2,543 injuries. In 2019, there were 417 mass shootings with 465 deaths and 1,707
injured." In addition, in that same year, according
to projections based on FBI data, there were 4,000 to 5,000 more gun murders than usual,
mainly in inner-city communities of color.
In the first 73 days of
Joe Biden's presidency, there were five mass shootings and more than 10,000 gun-violence
deaths. In the Covid-19 era, this has been the model the world's "most exceptional" nation (as
American politicians of both parties used to love to call this country) has set for the rest of
the planet. Put another way, so far in 2020 and 2021, there have been two pandemics in America,
Covid-19 and guns.
And though the weaponization of our citizenry and the carnage that's gone with it certainly
gets attention -- President Biden only recently called it "an
international embarrassment" -- here's the strange thing: when reporting on such a binge of
killings and the weapons industry that stokes it, few here think to include the deaths and
other injuries for which the American military has been responsible via its "forever wars" of
this century outside our own borders. Nor do they consider the massive U.S. weapons deliveries
and sales to other countries that often enough lead to the same. In other words, a full picture
of all-American carnage has -- to use an apt phrase -- remained missing in action.
Cornering the Arms Market
In fact, internationally, things are hardly less mind-boggling when it comes to this country
and weaponry. As with its armed citizenry, when it comes to arming other countries, Washington
is without peer. It's the weapons dealer of choice across much of the world. Yes, the U.S. gun
industry that makes all those rifles for this country also sells plenty of them abroad and, in
the Trump years, such sales were only made easier to complete (as was the selling of U.S.
unmanned aerial drones to "less stable governments"). When it comes to semi-automatic weapons
like the AR-15 or even grenades and flamethrowers, this country's arms makers no longer
even need State Department licenses, just far easier-to-get Commerce Department ones, to
complete such sales, even to particularly abusive nations. As a
result , to take one example, semi-automatic pistol exports abroad rose 148% in 2020.
But what I'm particularly thinking about here are the big-ticket items that those five
leading weapons makers of the military-industrial complex eternally produce. On the subject of
the sale of jet fighters like the F-16
and
F-35 , tanks and other armored vehicles, submarines (as well as anti-submarine weaponry),
and devastating bombs and
missiles , among other things, we leave our "near-peer" competitors as well as our
weapons-making allies in the dust. Washington is the
largest supplier to 20 of the 40 major arms importers on the planet.
When it comes to delivering the weapons of war, the U.S. leads all its competitors in a
historic fashion, especially in the war-torn and devastated Middle East. There, between 2015
and 2019, it gobbled up
nearly half of the arms market. Unsurprisingly, Saudi Arabia was its largest customer,
which, of course, only further stoked the brutal civil war in Yemen, where U.S. weapons are
responsible for the deaths of thousands of
civilians
. As Pentagon expert William Hartung wrote
of those years, U.S. arms deliveries to the region added up to "nearly three times the arms
Russia supplied to MENA [the Middle East and North Africa], five times what France contributed,
10 times what the United Kingdom exported, and 16 times China's contribution." (And often
enough, as
in Iraq and Yemen , some of
those weapons end up falling into the hands of those the U.S. opposes.)
In fact, in 2020, this country's arms sales abroad
rose a further 2.8% to $178 billion. The U.S. now supplies no fewer than 96 countries with weaponry and controls
37% of the global arms market (with, for example, Lockheed Martin alone
taking in $47.2 billion in such sales in 2018, followed by the four other giant U.S.
weapons makers and, in sixth place, the British defense firm BAE).
This remains the definition of mayhem-to-come, the international version of that spike in
domestic arms sales and the killings that went with it. After all, in these years, deaths due
to American arms in countries like Afghanistan and Yemen have grown strikingly. And to take
just one more example, arms, ammunition, and equipment sold to or given to
the brutal regime of Rodrigo Duterte for the Philippine military and constabulary have
typically led to deaths (especially in its "war on drugs") that no one's counting up.
And yet, even combined with the dead here at home, all of this weapons-based slaughter
hardly adds up to a full record when it comes to the U.S. as a global mass-killing machine.
Far, Far from Home
After all, this country has a historic 800 or so military bases around the
world and
nearly 200,000 military personnel stationed abroad (
about 60,000 in the Middle East alone). It has a drone-assassination program that extends
from Afghanistan across the Greater Middle East to Africa, a series of "forever wars" and
associated conflicts fought over that same expanse, and a Navy with major aircraft carrier task
forces patrolling the high seas. In other words, in this century, it's been responsible for
largely uncounted but remarkable numbers of dead and wounded human beings. Or put another way,
it's been a mass-shooting machine abroad.
Unlike in the United States, however, there's little way to offer figures on those dead. To
take one example, Brown University's invaluable Costs of War Project has estimated that, from
the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to late 2019, 801,000
people , perhaps 40% of them civilians, were killed in Washington's war on terror in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere. Of course, not all of those by any means
were killed by the U.S. military. In fact, some were even American soldiers and contractors.
Still, the figures are obviously sizeable. (To take but one very focused example, from December
2001 to December 2013 at TomDispatch , I was counting up
civilian wedding parties taken down by U.S. air power in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen. I came
up with eight well-documented ones with a death toll of nearly 300, including brides, grooms,
musicians, and revelers.)
Similarly, last December, Neta Crawford of the Costs of War Project
released a report on the rising number of Afghan civilians who had died from U.S. air
strikes in the Trump years. She found that in 2019, for instance, "airstrikes killed 700
civilians -- more civilians than in any other year since the beginning of the war." Overall,
the documented civilian dead from American air strikes in the war years is in the many
thousands, the wounded higher yet. (And, of course, those figures don't include the dead from
Afghan air strikes with U.S.-supplied aircraft.) And mind you, that's just civilians mistaken
for Taliban or other enemy forces.
Similarly, thousands
more civilians were killed by American air strikes across the rest of the Greater Middle
East and northern Africa. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which followed U.S. drone
strikes for years, estimated that, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, by 2019 such
attacks had
killed "between 8,500 and 12,000 people, including as many as 1,700 civilians -- 400 of
whom were children."
And that, of course, is just to begin to count the dead in America's conflicts of this era.
Or thought of another way, in this century, the U.S. military has been a kind of global
Paladin. Its motto could obviously be "have gun, will travel" and its forces and those allied
to it (and often supplied with American arms) have certainly killed staggering numbers of
people in conflicts that have devastated communities across a significant part of the planet,
while displacing an estimated 37 million people .
Now, return to those Americans gunned down in this country and think of all of this as a
single weaponized, well-woven fabric, a single American gun culture that spans the globe, as
well as a three-part killing machine of the first order. Much as mass shootings and public
killings can sometimes dominate the news here, a full sense of the damage done by the
weaponization of our culture seldom comes into focus. When it does, the United States looks
like slaughter central.
Or as that song from Have Gun -- Will Travel ended:
Paladin, Paladin,
Where do you roam?
Paladin, Paladin,
Far, far from home.
Far, far from home -- and close, close to home -- indeed.
The US is a failed experiment. It was always based in nihilism. What we are seeing is like
the rise in human sacrifices of the Mayans as their world was being eclipsed by the Spanish.
Ironically, "thoughts and prayers" are offered up at these sacrifices too. Did the Mayans
realize it was futile?
As more and more Americans realize that it is over and that the American dream is bunkum,
expect to see more carnage.
That figure of 400 Million guns in the USA is undoubtedly low, The late Kevin RC O'Brien
looked at production reports for various manufacturers and came up with the figure of 300
Million sold in the USA this century alone.
Sales of rifles aren't broken out by rifle type or model, but the best guess is that there
are somewhere between 10-15 Million AR 15 style rifles owned by us Citizens if you take into
account home made versions such as those made from 80% recievers or laminated wood.
The last reporting period was 2019 and a total of a little less than 400 murders were
committed by people using rifles of any kind, you ere 4 x as likely to be beaten to death
with fists and feet than killed by someone using any kind of rifle.
Want to reduce violent crime?
Reduce poverty, inequality and lack of opportunity, when the majority of the populace has a
stake in society they act like it, when they don't you get what we have.
TBH the article is a mess, and reading it is rather like being accosted by a stranger in a
bar with a strong personal agenda (" and another thing.")
But (as a non-Murkin) I just wanted to make the point that we're into American Exceptionalism
again, in this case of the negative rather than the positive kind. You get the feeling that
the author's knowledge of the outside world is pretty much limited to what's on CNN, and that
perhaps he doesn't actually know that the US isn't the only nuclear power in the world. And
so on.
How do you put an article like this into context?
Well, for a start, you wouldn't make comparisons with Yemen unless you had been to Yemen,
would you? There are lots of guns in Yemen (virtually the entire adult male population is
armed) but these are in addition to the massive holdings of the military. And we're talking
serious stuff here: AK47s are 7.62mm automatic weapons, and there are millions of them. It
was not uncommon for males you passed in the street to be carrying these weapons, and once
outside the cities (as in Afghanistan) they were everywhere. Shooting incidents were common,
the more so since, after midday, a lot of the male population was blasted out of its skull on
Khat, which is an amphetamine-like substance derived from chewing a local plant. There were
occasional clashes when security forces from different tribes opened fire on each other. Oh,
and many tribesmen in the city carry long bladed knives, and fatal stabbings in the street
are very common. All that's in peacetime, of course.
Second, as in the Yemeni example above, the vast majority of all the deaths in wars since
1989 have been from the use of Soviet, Russian and Chinese weaponry, often dating back to the
1970s. The wars in the DRC from about 1996-2000, involving seven nations and known as
"Africa's World War" killed anything between two and five million people, depending on how
you calculate the figures, and were almost exclusively fought with Soviet and Chinese
supplied weaponry. During the Cold War, the Soviets and Chinese flooded Africa with millions
of AK47s, Makarov automatic pistols, landmines, and 12.7 and 14.5mm heavy machine-guns. As
any African specialist will tell you, these were the real weapons of mass destruction,
because, unlike the F35, they actually work. Together with Soviet-era tanks and APCs, they
were also the principal weapons used in the fighting in Syria and Libya, and in Yemen before
(and mostly since) the Saudi-led intervention. Oh, and those photos you've seen of the
Myanmar military firing on the people? They use mostly weapons supplied by China.
This is not whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right. But I wish that, just
occasionally, writers from the US would take the trouble to do a bit of research about the
rest of the world. Perhaps it's true that there is a link between the sale of F35s to Japan
and gun violence among black youths in the inner cities, but that has to be argued, not just
assumed. I don't know how you measure these things, but I seriously doubt that the US is
somehow a uniquely psychopathically violent country. The author needs to get out more.
I assume the authors point is that there is an inherent violence to US culture, and it is
exporting it. There may well be some truth in this, but you can well look at plenty of other
places in the world where there is a cultural worship of violence (or there was at times
past) and it infected other nations. Japan and Germany as obvious examples. But on the
optimistic side of things, both those countries at least partially cured their addition to
worshiping militarism, although to be fair, the USAF had a major say in that.
The one thing that is often missing from this sort of analysis, is they way other
countries use the US's (and others) addition to militarism as a means of exerting control. An
obvious example is the Middle East, where the vast military expenditures are as much a means
of purchasing influence in Washington (and London and Paris and Moscow) as it is a way of
building up their respective militaries.
I think that may well be his point, or the point he's trying to make. I think it's true,
at least to some extent, but it's hardly a unique case, and there are plenty of other
societies in the world where you feel (correctly) much more threatened by violence than I
ever have in the US.
@David
Mr. Engelhardt is a US writer who understandably focuses on current US issues. He lays out
his point at the start: the U.S is "a mass-murder machine". He illustrates it by pointing out
how the US supplies weapons around the world, promoting, funding, and facilitating violence,
and itself slaughters people, directly and through proxies, by the millions. He also outlines
the remarkable violence prevalent in the U.S. These facts are undeniable.
With respect to context, of course the U.S. is not now, nor has it been in the past, the
source of ALL evil in the world. However It has been the source of a very large part of it in
the past century. From a practical point of view, what would be the point of Mr. Engelhardt
focusing on Russian and Chinese actions in, say, the 1980s, when his own country is engaging
in "mass murder" right now? It leads nowhere except to distract from current slaughter that
he may be able to help slow down.
The US as "a uniquely psychopathically violent country": the author does not actually say
that. Nonetheless the US is certainly a very violent country compared to other developed
countries and for that matter past imperialist countries. Collectively Britain, France,
Belgium, etc., etc., massacred millions, even tens of millions, of people in their empires
but to my knowledge were not especially violent at home. Germany was an exception to this.
The fact it slaughtered white people at home is what made its actions unacceptable to the
majority of the elites of most European countries.
The link between US violence abroad and at home: Chris Hedges has written about this. I
suggest you read what he has to say.
It is absurd to pretend that Russia or China is anything like as great a danger to peace
as the United States is. Forty four years ago Martin Luther King observed, ""As I have walked
among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails
and rifles would not solve their problems But they asked, and rightly so, 'what about
Vietnam?' They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its
problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I
could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without
having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own
government."
The US was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world then; it is an even greater
purveyor of violence today.
The only criticism I would make of the article is the disparagement of Palladin. Though
his business card read, 'Have Gun, Will Travel', in almost every episode the protagonist was
able to resolve the situation without killing anyone. The episodes are very entertaining, as
was his sidekick, Kim Chan (Kam Tong), who went by the extremely un-woke nickname of Hey
Boy.
I am always amazed at the hypocrisy of US politicians complaining of violence in the US
while ignoring or even approving of violence committed by the US outside the US borders.
I also support censoring violence in entertainment media.
Censoring anything, including displays of violence, would require state force, which is
based on the use of guns and other weapons -- another 'war to end war', I suppose.
According to the Violence Policy Center (about which I know nothing but will provisionally
trust), motor vehicle deaths still outnumber gun deaths, although guns are closing the gap.
[1] As I have been hit by private cars far more often than I have been shot at -- I ride
around on a bicycle as basic transportation, so the ratio is about 10:0 -- I'd like to
suggest that the proper metaphor for mortal violence in the US is the automobile, rather than
the gun. However, urban liberals like to focus on their political rivals, and gun fans tend
to be suburban or rural, so guns rather than vehicles are the choice of symbol. Yet again,
tribalism permeates every discussion, indeed, it seems, almost every thought.
"What Washington and its allies are doing is trampling over international law and kicking
it to the curb. Their conduct is that of rogue states who perceive themselves to be above the
law, entitled to act in whatever way they please with no accountability.
"Ironically, and sickeningly, the Americans, Europeans, Canadians, Australians and other
partners, talk loftily about respecting "values' and 'rules-based international order'. They
are the ones who are trashing any semblance of order. It is these NATO powers that have
launched numerous criminal wars of aggression without any mandate from the UN Security
Council. They have carried out covert regime-change operations which have unleashed mayhem
and terrorism. They impose unilateral sanctions on nations suffering from NATO's intrigues,
such as Syria and Venezuela. They run assassination programs and torture-renditions to black
sites around the world. Their troops kill Afghan civilians in cold blood after kicking down
their doors in the middle of the night. The United States rips up nuclear arms control
treaties with Russia, while sailing warships into Chinese territory."
So, under the tenets of International Law, both Russia and China have the right to
counter-attack and have. But the initial law breaking by the Outlaws must be stopped, and it
appears they must be forced to do so. And since two of the Outlaws sit on the UNSC, using
that organizations Article 7 powers won't do the job as the Veto will be invoked. IMO, the
only alternative is to turn to the UNGA and ask it to override the deadlocked UNSC and
warrant the arrest of the Outlaws by all UN member states wherever they may be.
I hope barflies take the time to read the editorial as it ends with an excellent news item
that's more than apt for our times.
What are the facts that indicate that "China wants to dominate the entire world"? There is
little or no evidence of that. Just repeating this pabulum on and on doesn't make it true. It
just makes hoi polloi think it is true.
There is no specific speech or document that clearly states that China wants to dominate
the entire world. It is an inference from many things pieced together, some of which are:
1. China's behavior after it was admitted to WTO. When it happened in 1999, the
expectation was that they would open up their market to global firms. Instead, what happened
was rampant technology theft and currency manipulation. They manipulated their industrial
policy to deny foreign firms a level playing field that Chinese companies were given in other
countries.
2. The Belt and Road projects. These are basically debt traps for poorer countries in
Asia, Africa and Europe in the name of infrastructure development. They give soft loans to
these countries for economically unviable infra projects, and when they fail, the Chinese
take ownership. Kinda like loan sharks loaning money to gamblers.
3. They have started grabbing territory from all neighbours using salami tactics, showing
some old "maps" that was never agreed and claiming they own the area. (Google "Nine-dash
line").
Add to this the planting of spies using Confucius institutes, secretly paying many
academic researchers to steal technology (Example: Charles Lieber from Harvard), paying
newspapers to carry China Daily propaganda supplements (WaPo, NYT, LA Ttimes, The Boston
Globe, WSJ just for starters), the Houston embassy spying, They have done this stuff not just
to USA but most major countries in the world.
Now of course we can ask, "But where did they say they want to rule the world?". Well,
Hitler didn't either. In 1938, he solemnly swore to Neville Chamberlain, the British PM that
he had no intention of conquering another country. We all know what happened after that.
Naivete is dangerous in these situations. If a country acquires enough power, it will start
having imperial ambitions. It's human nature. Germany under Bismarck in 1880s tried to stay
away from conquering other countries as long as possible, but they couldn't resist the
temptation. Now none of this means China will try to dominate the world at any cost. If
others resist strongly enough, they will back off. But that's something we have to do, and
get others to do.
1. So China copied the way in which the US industrialized in the eighteenth and nineteenth
century. Following the Washington Consensus script has a history of leading to dependency
– Ha-Joon Chang has written some very good papers and books on the basic hypocrisy of
the West in this area. In the eighteenth century Britain protected its infant textile
industry against the Indian one with very high tariffs. They also stole woollen technology
from the Dutch.
2. This is Western propaganda, perhaps reflecting the IMF/World Bank efforts of yore upon
China. The "debt trap" BRI myth has been pretty much debunked among academic researchers, but
that doesn't fit the Western anti-China discourse.
3. Grabbing territory from all their neighbours? What territory? Compare the nine-dash line
mirrors to the declared hegemony of the US over the Caribbean and Central American nations
– backed up by repeated invasions and destabilizations (Haiti, Panama, Nicaragua,
Guatemala, Cuba etc.). Take a look at the US history of grabbing lands (the Philippines,
Puerto Rico, half of Mexico, Hawaii), China is exceedingly tame compared to US history, as
well as the US recent aggressions such as the illegal invasion of Iraq and destabilization of
Syria.
The MSM that you quote are the purveyors of fake news with no actual backing apart from
intelligence community briefings, the "stenographers of the intelligence community" as one
commentator put it. This is the classic propaganda designed to rile up the population to
support action against a new "enemy", very 1984.
1. Oh I know they are China is copying USA's policy in 18th and 19th century. That is what
is concerning. That is a successful playbook to gain a lot of economic power very quickly. Of
course the USA pointing fingers is hypocrisy. But that does not make this any less of a
threat.
2. Debunked by "academic researchers"? Care to share some sources? Multiple countries like
Malaysia, Kenya, Myanmar, Sierra Leone and Bangladesh have either cancelled projects or
trying to renegotiate them. The reason is because the projects are nothing but jobs and
demand creation programs for Chinese workers and companies. Contracts are awarded at inflated
rates to Chinese contractors without competitive bidding. Then they bring in workers and
equipment wholesale from mainland china. Some projects are economically viable, others are
just white elephants, like the highway in montenegro or a port/airport in Sri Lanka in the
middle of the jungle.
3. I am not denying what USA has done to other countries. China is just starting, so what
they do looks tame. Give them a little time.
I fully agree that the MSM are purveyors of fake news. I was referring to how they all
have taken Chinese money to print stuff favourable to them, and even articles entirely
written by Chinese foreign ministry. Now of course, they might change tack and start beating
the war drums if TPTB wants them to. That confirms my opinion that most MSM are just
mouthpieces for hire with no moral principles.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/07/china-plan-for-global-media-dominance-propaganda-xi-jinping
Please note, I am not defending all the terrible things America has done. Pointing out
that China is a threat need not come attached with any moral judgement on America.
Also, the proper response to China IMO should be more in economic policy than military
saber-rattling. Tariffs are just a start. Why are we not building more manufacturing in USA?
Sure, wages are high and prices will shoot up. But do we really need to import 15bn worth of
sneakers (that's about 200 mn pairs a year)? Let us make shoes in America that may cost twice
as mush, but three times more durable. Same with cellphones. Decrapifying products will go a
long way in making american manufacturing viable. But that requires great sacrifice by the
consumers. Shopping or goodies has been turned into a dopamine-drip. Investing class and
business are just as addicted to high profit margins & ROIs. Cut the dependence on China,
and watch them scramble to fix their internal issues like falling wages and unemployment. The
pity is we have lost the will as a nation to make such sacrifices.
I am not sure the will does not exist. I think the will might be suppressed and
thwarted.
We would need a Protectionist Party to explain everything you have touched on and run
candidates on that basis and on that program to see whether the diffuse and muffled will
might be uncovered and re-aggregated and recovered and weaponised for domestic political
re-conquest of government and hence of political economic policy.
I envision a delicious scenario-vision in which the Protectionist Party finally wins all
three branches and the Protectionist Party President makes a speech and at the end of that
speech, AND IN MANDARIN to to make sure the prime perpetrator of export aggression hears the
message and gets the point, the following phrase . . . . in MANDARIN, remember . . .
Hmmnm "If a country acquires enough power it will start having imperial ambitions?" I
agree completely with your statement. The rest seem pretty much what I have been reading in
the Washington Post and New York Times lately. I am not sure about their objectivity. One
thing is certain and that is that war talk very easily can slip into war. Having served in
the military for over 30 years and deployed many times the best advice I ever got was from
that political analyst Mike Tyson, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face."
War talk with China and Russia and Iran and trying to cripple economies with sanctions never
has and never will work but we can always try to educate a new young generation of
politicians like Joe.
Nah. But I know we need a military to defend ourselves, especially if something that
happens on the other end of the world would make the supermarket shelves go empty in a jiffy.
I think we need to reduce external economic dependence and then cut the military to a
fraction of it's current size, just enough to patrol the borders and coasts.
The bulk of the "rampant technology theft" was their insistence on building the
requirement for specified technology transfers into the agreements that let companies set up
shop there. They had watched neocolonialist behavior long enough not to want to be locked
permanently into a subservient position. This part was of course not theft at all. For the
rest of it, yeah, industrial espionage is a thing. But one notes that the firms generally
stayed there.
Currency manipulation is only bad when the other guys do it. We have periodically
deliberately weakened the dollar to try to address balance of trade issues, and in the
aftermath of the '08 recession everybody was doing competitive devaluation, trying to
accomplish by that means what they would have tried tariffs for in an earlier era.
I haven't seen a decent scholarly piece that concurs with the propaganda about belt and
road loans as sinister debt traps.
Territorial disputes aside, most of those neighbors have China as a major trading partner,
and none of the disputes have gone hot. The neighbors are also not entirely lacking in power.
Russia and India are nuclear powers, and if Japan chose to field a more formidable military
it could easily do so.
One of the hardest and most disturbing lessons we've learned from the Nixon China gambit
was that capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to democracy. Nor is a democratic society a
prerequisite for capitalism to flourish.
That came much after the Nixon thaw with China, after the fall of Soviet Union. Francis
Fukuyama solemnly proclaiming "End of History" and all that. The turning point was China
being let into WTO in 1999. Clinton, Bush II and Obama swallowed that "capitalism leads to
democracy" idea hook, line and sinker.
Technology theft, spun any way, is still technology theft. Sure, Industrial espionage is
"a thing" that everyone does. So is currency manipulation. Since we feel guilty that USA
gained global power by doing all these, we should let others do it too, just to even the
scales? Foreign policy mixed with moral feelings is a recipe for disaster.
"....Yang responded sharply to the US officials and criticized Washington for both
domestic and foreign policy issues. "The United States uses its military force and financial
hegemony to carry out long arm jurisdiction and suppress other countries," he said. "It
abuses so-called notions of national security to obstruct normal trade exchanges, and incite
some countries to attack China."
"....The US took several steps ahead of the talks that made it clear the meeting would be
contentious. Blinken visited Japan and South Korea with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin
earlier this week. While meeting with his Japanese and Korean counterparts, Blinken slammed
Beijing, accusing China of using "coercion and aggression" in the region. On Wednesday, the
US slapped sanctions on 24 Chinese and Hong Kong officials...."
using coercion and aggression - two very definitive qualities of American Imperialism post
WWII
Now they are pushing the "China genociding Uyghurs" lies to frame the minds of Americans
and people in the West and around the global to prepare a hot war against China.
Now they are pushing the "China genociding Uyghurs" lies to frame the minds of Americans
and people in the West and around the global to prepare a hot war against China.
There is no "Hot War" in preparation against China, this is simply procedural posturing in
the absence of any other means of relating to the Chinese civilisation.
The Zio-American empire is well aware this would mean a nuclear annihilation or at the
least a re-shuffling of the global order against their interests.
The US has developed no means of relating to civilizational challenges other than
violence, so it is merely cycling through the motions it knows of but with an understanding
that it cannot take them to their logical conclusion.
Thanks for your perspective, xot! Interesting insights.
trump changed that, suddenly the ugly side of the empire became visible
I've heard this about Trump a lot, but I've always wondered why Trump was the ultimate
catalyst for this epiphany. You would think that the Iraq War should have been that watershed
moment, or even Libya (and perhaps they were for many, like me). I suppose from the
perspective of inter-imperialist relations in the first world, a lack of decorum of the level
of Trump's is more anomalous and egregious than the imposition of death and destruction of
people in the global south.
I think that the presidency of Mr. Trump revealed the ugly side of the United States;
suddenly the gilded papier marche of America, carefully created by the best propaganda
techniques over 70 years, was shredded and USA was revealed to be a country just like so many
others.
It is up to American people, Judeo-Christians as well as others, to address the deep deep
social problems of the United States.
Despite a roomful of hot air amerikans will always be considered War Criminals by the
rest of us
I have to admit having become totally bored with the words which any gang of elites from
any nation whose population is far too large to have the types at the top comprehend much
less represent citizens' points of view, spout.
I get that there are fans of particular nations here, who believe some of these nation
states have more humane policies than other nation states, but all of them however humane are
essentially spouting toop down driven attitudes.
We know that amerika with its narrow & prescriptive "you can vote for anyone as long as
it is someone from one of these two virtually identical political organisations" system pays
little attention to their citizens' views. Unfortunately humans being humans, once a person
gains a little power their priorities focus on retaining & increasing power, so that
after time, no matter how egalitarian things may have been at the start, a shift to imbalance
between the governors and the governed is inevitable.
It is impossible to imagine that President Xi Jinping would do as Mao Zedong did and hand
power to the people, especially the nation's young people to trigger the 1966 Cultural
Revolution.
One thing is for sure though, that is however many may have died during the cultural
revolution, the casualties were confined to China's citizens and the casualties &
atrocities were infinitesimal compared to the murders, rapes and savagery committed by
amerika's war upon the people of Indochina.
IOW 50+ years ago China moved to resolve generational differences with an internal, domestic
debate, whilst amerika tried to resolve that issue by indoctrinating its young people into a
thoroughly racist anti-asian POV, then sent their youth to "kick out the jams" on the heads
of the people of Vietnam, Laos & Cambodia.
The results were horrific and since courtesy of TV, they were far better documented than the
horror inflicted upon the citizens of Korea less than a decade before have stuck in all
non-amerikans minds ever since.
I have sounded off here at MoA quite a few times that most amerikans view the Indochina
conflict negatively because it was such a waste of 'young amerikan' lives, rather than the
way the rest of us see it, that amerika butchered and raped their way through Indochina
without the slightest remorse.
Last week I stumbled across an old documentary released back in 1972 "Winter Soldier". The
film documents the
1971 Winter Soldier hearing held by Vietnam Vets Against War.
VVAW had tried to stop the Indochina slaughter by the standard means - protests, marches,
contacting politicians, all to no avail. So then they came up with the 'Winter Soldier'
hearing which had veterans of the war against the people of Indochina, telling their stories
of the atrocities they had committed.
The witnesses came from across the range of amerika's military; from grunts - surprisingly
most were volunteers rather than draftees, to a Marine captain who served as a helicopter
pilot.
These guys who returned to amerika lauded as heroes while deep down feeling nothing but
Guilt & shame,
make it clear that My Lai was no outlier, it was SOP.
It is also clear from what they tell us of their boot camp experience that racist
anti-asian indoctrination featured big time in their training which led them to regard all
Vietnamese as the enemy.
The behaviour got worse and worse, particularly rapes and the mutilation of children, once
the troops realised no one was would restrict their cruel antics against those they all
considered to be less than human. Senior officers either joined in or 'looked the other
way'.
Most of this documentary is in the form of testimony as cameras were generally kept away from
the 'fun' but even so I found just hearing the stories too much to bear.
Anyway although copies of 'Winter Soldier' do become available on You Tube from time to
time, they can be hard to find and are frequently taken down, so if anyone does want to know
what is commonplace for the brave amerikan military, they can download a copy of Winter
Soldier from here .
The hearings likely did the job eventually, in that the thugs in control of amerika got
the message that if the war continued, more and more truth about the scale & horror of
awful amerikan atrocities would become public and that would be counter to satiating these
elite thugs' greed inside and outside amerika. A peace agreement was signed and VVAW went
back to emphasising the damage done to amerikan soldiers rather than the horrors inflicted
upon a much, much larger Indochinese civilian population.
This is why BidenCorp are confidently denying their crimes while asserting all these other
nations are killers, simply because amerikans have never been required to comprehend the true
scale of the crimes amerika has committed upon their (mostly unjustly selected, amerikan
created) enemies.
All the words spouted by elites only ever reinforce prevailing attitudes. Change in the
way amerika views itself will only be effected when amerikans are forced to honestly consider
all the crimes which have been committed in their name.
I'm not holding my breath, neither do I see much point in any analysis of who said what to
whom as words are worthless in the face of fell deeds.
Because the $31Bn (which is probably understated) would primarily have gone to the lower
classes in which the U.S. caused humanitarian disaster is most prevalent. Rich, formerly
colonial Venezuelan families don't give a shit. The and their ex-pat kids live most of the
year in Miami or Vancouver or Madrid. The white upper class in Venezuela is the exact group
from which Mr. Random Guy-do emanates and who he represent. They live in gated communities
including in the hills around Caracas and their stores are likely fully stocked (as reported
by Max Blumenthal last year). However, they are a small minority compared to the indigenous
peoples who these sanctions are DESIGNED to hurt. The bank accounts of the colonials are safe
while a small number, relatively speaking, of pro-Chavista/Maduro operatives are completely
cut off by the Empire.
Same thing in ANY country that the USA is sanctioning. Have a look at Biden's Iran envoy's
statements about everyday Iranian people.
In response to online criticism, Nephew has claimed that "the main target" of the sanctions
regime he designed was "the oligarchs." But his book on "The Art of Sanctions" tells
another story.
Nephew fondly recalls how he structured sanctions to sabotage Iranian economic reforms
that would have improved the purchasing power of average people. The Obama administration
destroyed the economic prospects of Iran's working-class majority while ensuring that "only
the wealthy or those in positions of power could take advantage of Iran's continued
connectedness," he wrote. As "stories began to emerge from Iran of intensified income
inequality and inflation," Nephew pronounced another success.
As he made clear, the rising inequality "was a choice" that Washington "made on the
basis of helping to drive up the pressure on the Iranian economy from internal sources."
Nephew went on to claim credit for October 2012 protests brought on by the devaluation of
Iran's currency.
So these sanctions and the loss in $31Bn for Venezuela was designed to and in fact did
hurt the poorest of the poor and the working 'middle' class in that country.
here's a snippet, about Venezuela and the US supported/directed economic terrorism, which
has obviously caused much economic mayhem and dislocation, humanitarian disaster, and a large
number of deaths (I have seen figures up to hundred thousand or more, from the food and
medicine sanctions etc. Not to mention England stealing Venezuela's gold. I would imagine the
real death toll is quite a bit larger)
"......Subversion in Venezuela, by contrast, might not require as much 'engagement'. In
Cuba the government is stable and the opposition isolated. In Venezuela, by contrast, the
Maduro government faces a deep economic crisis (dramatically and intentionally exacerbated by
US sanctions) and major public discontent. Betting on Maduro's vulnerability, Biden continues
to recognize the self-appointed 'president' Juan Guaidó. Under Obama, Biden courted
Guaidó ally Leopoldo López – a so-called political prisoner arrested for
inciting violent protests that killed dozens of people – who is now calling for Biden
to lead a renewed international effort to topple Maduro. US support for the far-right forces
of Guaidó and López is intended to prevent a deal between Maduro and the more
pragmatic elements of the opposition. Such a deal might alleviate Venezuela's economic
crisis, but it could leave Maduro in power and thus derail the US's regime change agenda.
In late 2018 Biden complained that Trump's 'intensified sanctions on Venezuela have been
clouded by sabre-rattling' and 'clunky sloganeering'. At that time, those intensified
sanctions had already killed an estimated 40,000 civilians, with an unknown number of
additional deaths after Trump imposed harsher measures in 2019. But the goal of regime change
had not succeeded. Trump's crime in Venezuela was not his lethal denial of food and medicine
to the population, but rather his 'faulty execution' of the policy. This critique informs
Biden's current roadmap for Venezuela, which hinges on refining the sanctions to inflict
maximum political damage. Secretary Blinken argues that sanctions must be honed 'so that
regime enablers really feel the pain', while González favours a 'smart' use of
'multilateral sanctions' over Trump's go-it-alone programme...."
As we saw with Lavrov's latest interview, the gloves are coming off as China and Russia
escalate the diplomatic war in response to the "US-centered, racist, and mafia-styled
community" attacking them. The quote is from the Global Times Editor and deserves to be put
in full:
"Canada, the UK and Australia, three members of the Five Eyes alliance, have recently
taken action to put pressure on China. They have formed a US-centered, racist, and
mafia-styled community, willfully and arrogantly provoking China and trying to consolidate
their hegemony as all gangsters do. They are becoming a racist axis aimed at stifling the
development rights of 1.4 billion Chinese."
Despite the proven fact that there's only one race of humans--the Human Race--the 5-Eyes
nations continue to employ racism as a key tool of their so-called diplomacy. Again, the GT
Editor:
"Five Eyes alliance members are all English-speaking countries. The formation of four
states, except the UK, is the result of British colonization. Those countries share the
Anglo-Saxon civilization. The Five Eyes countries have been brought together by the US to
become the 'center of the West.' They have a strong sense of civilization superiority
. The bloc, which was initially aimed at intelligence sharing, has now become an organization
targeting China and Russia. The evil idea of racism has been fermenting consciously or
unconsciously in their clashes with the two countries."
And this "idea" is nothing new and has existed for centuries. My research led me to a 100+
year-old work, The Day of The Saxon , and to the work that suggested it, The Empire
of "The City" , both of which are freely available at The Archive. What is suggested by
them and the recent work ( Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy ),
reviewed by Pepe about the planning that resulted in the post-war Outlaw US Empire is that
Empire is merely the continuance of the global Saxon Empire that still exists, and that what
we're experiencing are the ongoing "political adjustments" that confer superiority to the
Saxons since that's what they seek. In updated parlance, that would be Full Spectrum
Dominance. As we know, the Chinese have already felt Saxon love and want no more of it and
have finally made the connection between past and present. The Editor again:
"With a common language, a common historical background, and a coordinated attack target,
such an axis is destined to erode international relations and allow hooliganism to rise to
the diplomatic stage in the 21st century." [My Emphasis]
Hooliganism, an apt term given its roots in British football. Do read the entire editorial
for there is much more commendable content. Those in the EU need to understand that they're
doing the Saxon's bidding even through the UK is no longer a member as NATO still remains and
is dominated by Saxons.
Chris Hedges, Just talkin' 'bout revolution [against the Borg? Chris can't quite bring
himself to name just who "they" are] on Jimmy Dore yesterday:
"These people...you know, quite literally, will kill us...not just us...I'm talking about
snuffing out the possibility of the next generation...my kids...and they have to be
stopped"
Astonishing lack of understanding of history, basic humanity and common sense.
It seems no one among the current group of "victors" has heard the phrase "win the battle but
lose the war."
With all the witch hunting and hate mongering going on, it also seems no one in authority has
heard "treat others as you would have them treat you."
Also applies to WEF Great Reset Masters of the Universe.
A huge amount of karma heading their way.
Wall Street killed the truth squad and protected the profits from job and investment
offshoring. This is what happens to elected officials when they attempt to represent the
general interest rather than the special interests that finance political campaigns. The
public interest is blocked off by a brick wall posted with a sign that says get compliant
with the Establishment or get out of politics.
As for the "direct collision course" re the EU and Russia, the collision course has been
imposed by the Master-oligarchy of U. S. on the hapless vassal EU.
"Where is the line between a successful global business, in-demand services and
consolidation of big data – and attempts to harshly and unilaterally govern society,
replace legitimate democratic institutions, restrict one's natural right to decide for
themselves how to live, what to choose, what stance to express freely?" Putin wondered.
"We've all seen this just now in the US. And everybody understands what I'm talking
about," he added.
The Russian leader was apparently referring to the crackdown by Big Tech corporations like
Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon, mostly on Donald Trump and his supporters, during
the recent presidential election in the US. The companies, which, according to some critics,
sided with Democratic candidate Joe Biden, blocked President Trump's social media accounts over
accusations of inciting violence, with the same being done to many pages of groups and
individuals who'd backed him.
However, one-sided bias claim voiced by some might be an overestimation – the accounts
of Democrats supporters were also subject to restrictions, but on a much smaller scale.
Conservative Twitter-like platform Parler was also forced offline, and now there are calls
to block the Telegram app as well.
These events have shown that Big Tech companies "in some areas have de facto become
rivals to the government," Putin said.
Billions of users spend large parts of their lives on the platforms and, from the point of
view of those companies, their monopolistic position is favorable for organizing economic and
technological processes, the Russian president explained. "But there's a question of how
such monopolism fits the interest of society," he stressed.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
shadow1369 8 hours ago 27 Jan, 2021 07:51 AM
This is a great opportunity for Russia to create some Big Tech operators which actually allow
free speech. Russia certainly has the expertise and the means, and cannot be bullied by
western regimes.
Proton1963 shadow1369 1 hour ago 27 Jan, 2021 02:54 PM
Sure.. But only after the Russians can build a drivable car or a decent smart phone or a
laptop.
The West is surely giving Russia a lot of opportunities, through its own arrogance and
stupidity, does not it ? It keeps going backwards in its effort to diminish Russia. And the
same goes for China too.
JOHNCHUCKMAN 7 hours ago 27 Jan, 2021 08:45 AM
Putin is a remarkable statesman, and he sets a very high standard for political discourse. I
can't think of any of our Western leaders who speak in these truthful and philosophic terms.
What we hear in the West are slogans or whining or complaining.
Tenakakhan JOHNCHUCKMAN 3 hours ago 27 Jan, 2021 01:03 PM
The patriarch of the west has become extremely weak. It seems like our leaders lack any moral
authority to speak truth and common sense for fear of being cancelled. What we see now is the
virtue signaling dregs sponsored by extreme groups leading our nations down the toilet. If a
real war was to break out now we would be cannon fodder.
Hilarous 7 hours ago 27 Jan, 2021 09:04 AM
I think there's a simple explanation. Big tech is afraid to lose section 230 of the
communications act, which stipulates that online platforms are not legally responsible for
user content. Trump and some Republicans have accused social media sites of muzzling
conservative voices. They said undoing Section 230 would let people who claim they have been
slighted sue the companies. So Big Tech has a strong interest to remove Trump and run down a
few bad examples to convince people and politics that Section 230 must remain.
Count_Cash 8 hours ago 27 Jan, 2021 07:40 AM
In many cases they aren't rivals, but owners of government. Money controls everything in the
west and big tech have it. They have taken control of, or are blackmailing governments. The
Western Liberal Regime straddles both Big Tech and government!
RTaccount Count_Cash 7 hours ago 27 Jan, 2021 08:57 AM
Correct. Let us never forget that in America we are ruled by oligarchs just like the rest of
the world, and that our oligarchs are largely hidden. They are our true government, and so it
is meaningless to make this type of distinction.
46 Follow RT on Outgoing US
President Donald Trump has delivered his "parting gift" to the Moscow-led Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline, with newly announced sanctions targeting a pipe-laying vessel and companies involved
in the multinational project.
The specialist ship concerned, named, 'Fortuna,' and oil tanker 'Maksim Gorky', as well as
two Russian firms, KVT-Rus and Rustanker, were blacklisted on Tuesday under CAATSA (Countering
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) as part of Washington's economic war on Moscow.
The same legislation had been previously used by the US to target numerous Russian officials
and enterprises.
Russian energy giant Gazprom warned its investors earlier on Tuesday that Nord Stream 2
could be suspended or even canceled if more US restrictions are introduced.
However, Moscow has assured its partners that it intends to complete the project despite
"harsh pressure on the part of Washington," according to Kremlin press secretary Dmitry
Peskov. Reacting to the new package of sanctions on Tuesday, Peskov called them
"unlawful."
Meanwhile, the EU said it is in no rush to join the Washington-led sanction war on Nord
Stream 2. EU foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, said that the bloc is not going to resist
the construction of the project.
"Because we're talking about a private project, we can't hamper the operations of those
companies if the German government agrees to it," Borrell said Tuesday.
Nord Stream 2 is an offshore gas pipeline, linking Russia and Germany with aim of providing
cheaper energy to Central European customers. Under the agreement between Moscow and Berlin, it
was to be launched in mid-2020, but the construction has been delayed due to strong opposition
from Washington.
The US, which is hoping to sell its Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to Europe, has hit the
project with several rounds of sanctions over scarcely credible claims that it could undermine
European energy security. Critics say the real intent is to force EU members to buy from
American companies.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
46 Follow RT on
Trends:
Fatback33 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The group that owns Washington makes the foreign policy. That policy is not for the benefit
of the people.
DukeLeo Fatback33 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:06 PM
That is correct. The private banks and corporations in the US are very upset about Nord
Stream - 2, as they want Europe to buy US gas at double price. Washington thus introduces
additional political gangsterism in the shape of new unilateral sanctions which have no merit
in international law.
noremedy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:22 AM
Is the U.S. so stupid that they do not realize that they are isolating themselves? Russia has
developed SPFS, China CIPS, together with Iran, China and Russia are further developing a
payment transfer system. Once in place and functioning this system will replace the western
SWIFT system for international payment transfers. It will be the death knell for the US
dollar. 327 million Americans are no match for the rest of the billions of the world's
population. The next decade will see the total debasement of the US monetary system and the
fall from power of the decaying and crumbling in every way U.S.A.
Hanonymouse noremedy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:37 PM
They don't care. They have the most advanced military in the world. Might makes right, even
today.
Shelbouy 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:25 PM
Russia currently supplies over 50% of the natural gas consumed by The EU. Germany and Italy
are the largest importers of Russian natural gas. What is the issue of sanctions stemming
from and why are the Americans doing this? A no brainer question I suppose. It's to make more
money than the other supplier, and exert political pressure and demand obedience from its
lackey. Germany.
David R. Evans Shelbouy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
Russia and Iran challenge perpetual US wars for Israel's Oded Yinon Plan. Washington is
Israel-controlled territory.
Jewel Gyn 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:34 AM
Sanctions work both ways. With the outgoing Trump administration desperately laying mines for
Biden, we await how sleepy Joe is going to mend strayed ties with EU.
Count_Cash 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The US mafia state continues with the same practices. The dog is barking but the caravan is
going. The counter productiveness of sanctions always shows through in the end! I am sure
with active efforts of Germany and Russia against US mafia oppression that a blowback will be
felt by the US over time!
Dachaguy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
This is an act of war against Germany. NATO should respond and act against the aggressor,
America.
xyz47 Dachaguy 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:20 PM
NATO is run by the US...
lovethy Dachaguy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:04 PM
NATO has no separate existence. It's the USA's arm of aggression, suppression and domination.
Germany after WWII is an occupied country of USA. Thousand of armed personnel stationed in
Germany enforcing that occupation.
Chaz Dadkhah 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:19 PM
Further proof that Trump is no friend of Russia and is in a rush to punish them while he
still has power. If it was the swamp telling him to do that, like his supporters suggest,
then they would have waited till their man Biden came in to power in less than 24 hours to do
it. Wake up!
Mac Kio 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:34 PM
USA hates fair competition. USA ignores all WTO rules.
Russkiy09 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:33 PM
By whining and not completing in the face of US, Russia is losing credibility. They should
not have delayed to mobilize the pipe laying vessel and other equipment for one whole year.
They should have mobilized in three months and finished by now. Same happens when Jewtin does
not shoot down Zio air force bombing Syria everyday. But best option should have been to tell
European vassals that "if you can, take our gas. But we will charge the highest amount and
sell as much as we want, exclude Russophobic Baltic countries and Poland and neo-vassal
Ukraine. Pay us not in your ponzi paper money but real goods and services or precious metals
or other commodities or our own currency Ruble." I so wish I could be the President of
Russia. Russians deserve to be as wealthy as the Swiss or SIngapore etc., not what they are
getting. Their leaders should stand up for their interest. And stop empowering the greedy
merchantalist Chinese and brotherhood Erdogan.
BlackIntel 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:27 PM
America i captured by private interest; this project threatens American private companies
hence the government is forced to protect capitalism. This is illegal
Ohhho 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:15 PM
That project was a mistake from the start: Russia should distance itself from the Evil
empire, EU included! Stop wasting time and resources on trying to please the haters and
keeping them more competitive with cheaper Russian natural gas: focus on real partners and
potential allies elsewhere!
butterfly123 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
I have said it before that part of the problem is at the door of the policy-makers and
politicians in Russia. Pipeline project didn't spring up in the minds of politicians in
Russia one morning, presumably. There should have been foresight, detailed planning, and
opportunity creation for firms in Russia to acquire the skill-set and resources to advance
this project. Not doing so has come to bite Russia hard and painful. Lessons learnt I hope Mr
President!
jakro 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:37 AM
Good news. The swamp is getting deeper and bigger.
hermaflorissen 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:49 AM
Trump finally severed my expectations for the past 4 years. He should indeed perish.
ariadnatheo 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
That is one Trump measure that will not be overturned by the Senile One. They will need to
amplify the RussiaRussiaRussia barking and scratching to divert attention from their dealings
with China
Neville52 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:01 PM
Its time the other nations of the world turned their backs on the US. Its too risky if you
are an international corporation to suddenly have large portions of your income cancelled due
to some crazy politician in the US
5th Eye 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:03 PM
From empire to the collapse of empire, US follows UK to the letters. Soon it will be
irrelevant. The only thing that remains for UK is the language. Probably hotdog for the US.
VonnDuff1 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The USA Congress and its corrupt foreign policy dictates work to the detriment of Europe and
Russia, while providing no tangible benefits to US states or citizens. So globalist demands
wrapped in the stars & stripes, should be laughed at, by all freedom loving nations.
Western hypocrisy revealed 10 years after the event in today's Independent:
"Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence" . And they go on and on about those wicked,
evil Russians and their tyrannical leader causing death and destruction Syria by their
"support" of the Assad government whilst the West arms the "freedom fighters" there.
Islamist-Marxist MEK's history, including spying on Iran on behalf of Saddam Hussein when
he invaded Iran, destroying its western cities. After murdering Americans - but the Lobby
always gets what it wants, so MEK is now off the terrorist list and instead being funded by
the U.S., and housed in a training camp in Albania.
The MEK was founded in 1965 by three Islamic leftists with the goal of toppling the
U.S.-supported regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
In the 1970s it undertook a campaign of assassinating U.S. advisers and bombing U.S.
corporations in Iran. It supported the 1979 Revolution in Iran, but in 1981 it turned its
guns against the Tehran government and began a campaign of assassinations and terrorist
operations that resulted in the death of thousands of Iranians, including the executions of
its own supporters by government officials, soldiers, police officers, and ordinary
people.
It then moved its headquarters to Iraq, made a pact with the regime of Saddam Hussein,
which was fighting a ferocious war with Iran. The MEK spied on Iranian troops for Iraq,
attacked Iran at the end of Iran-Iraq war with Hussein's support, and helped Hussein put down
the uprisings by the Iraqi Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south after the Persian
Gulf War of 1990-91.
The MEK is despised by the vast majority of Iranians for what they consider to be
treason committed against their homeland.
So funny. I remember reading Gore Vidal's novel "Creation", which deals with the Persian
Empire, Zoroastrism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Socratic philosophy and morals.
The historical details in the book are relatively well researched, albeit one does get
some literary licence for building up characters and story lines, etc. Now the Persian
Imperial court is presented in the novel as being choke full of Greek Dissidents clamoring to
the King of Kings to attack and subdue Greece/Athens, or what not. Marathon, Salamina,
Thermopylae, Plateia follow... The Iranian "dissidents" should learn from their past...
The Athenian "wooden wall" (their ships) is Iran's missile force...
IF TRUE... a big if... this would be somewhat disturbing. One would hope that news outlets
in their never-ending search for "content" would vet the authors just a tad.
But still... the rationale for going to war (with Iran or anyone else) rises or falls on
its own merits. The arguments raised by these authors are of far more importance than whether
the authors are real or fake. Think of how often we have seen academic credentials or
military service exaggerated by AMERICAN academics and authors to goose their relevance. They
may fall to the wayside as proponents of one thing or another when exposed but their
arguments may still be true or false. Same goes for people who do NOT exaggerate their
credentials.
I would think it would be far more dangerous if Twitter and other outlets were allowing
our ADVERSARIES to create fake personalities promoting PEACE when in fact we need to take
action against them.
It time to make him accountable at the election box. Not that it matter much as Biden is yet another neocon and Zionist, but
stil...
American people are tied of sliding standard of living, permanent wars and jingoism. Trump might share Hillary fate in 2020,
because any illusion that he is for common fold, who voted for him in 2016 now disappeared. So he is not better then neocon Biden and Biden is new bastard. So why vote for the old bastard if we have new, who might be
slightly better in the long run
This is a very expensive foreign policy, that doesn't benefit the USA. It has potential to
raise the price of oil significantly.
Notable quotes:
"... Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of campaign funds and the lobby provides those. ..."
"... I can also see this green lighting Israeli or joint American-Israeli strikes on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons development sites and other military and petro-state assets. ..."
"... It's disgusting to watch the people of the US/UK/EU go along with this. Western elites are fat, lazy, vicious, and cruel. ..."
"... Paul wrote: "Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump administration." Yes at least as much or more zionist. Nothing about Harris or Biden (or the DNC) says they won't be. ..."
"... I nominate president Eisenhower as slightly less zionist on one occasion: during the Anglo,French, Zionist Suez invasion of 1956 Eisenhower remarked after numerous UN resolutions condemning the bandit state's aggression ' Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?' ..."
"... "The EU is trying to prop up the US Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself. " ..."
"... Donald Trump talked up his Iran policy in a profanity-laden tirade on Friday, telling conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that Tehran knows the consequences of undermining the United States. ..."
"... "Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice: if you fuck around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before." ..."
The U.S. has imposed
new sanctions on Iran which will make ANY trade with the country very difficult:
[T]he Trump administration has decided to impose yet further sanctions on the country ,
this time targeting the entirety of the Iranian financial sector. These new measures carry
biting secondary sanctions effects that cut off third parties' access to the U.S. financial
sector if they engage with Iran's financial sector.
Since the idea was first floated publicly , many have argued that sanctioning Iran's
financial sector would eviscerate what humanitarian trade has survived the heavy hand of
existing U.S. sanctions.
Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of
campaign funds and the lobby provides those. The move is also designed to preempt any
attempts by a potentially new administration to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran:
This idea appears to have first been introduced into public discourse in an
Aug. 25, 2020, Wall Street Journal article by Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg urging
the Trump administration to "[b]uild an Iranian [s]anctions [w]all" to prevent any future
Biden administration from returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the
nuclear accord between Iran and the world's major powers on which President Donald Trump
reneged in May 2018.
The new sanctions will stop all trade between the 'western' countries and Iran.
The Foreign Minister of Iran responded with defiance:
Amid Covid19 pandemic, U.S. regime wants to blow up our remaining channels to pay for food
& medicine.
Iranians WILL survive this latest of cruelties.
But conspiring to starve a population is a crime against humanity. Culprits & enablers
-- who block our money -- WILL face justice.
In response Iran will continue its turn to the east. Russia, China and probably India will
keep payment channels with Iran open or will make barter deals.
The Europeans, who so far have not dared to counter U.S. sanctions on Iran, are likely to be
again shown as the feckless U.S. ass kissers they have always been. They will thereby lose out
in a market with 85 million people that has the resources to pay for their high value products.
If they stop trade of humanitarian goods with Iran they will also show that their much vaunted
'values' mean nothing.
The European Union claims that it wants to be an independent actor on the world stage. If
that is to be taken seriously this would be the moment to demonstrate it.
Posted by b on October 9, 2020 at 16:37 UTC | Permalink
Unconscionable but what is new with pompass and his ghouls; treasury dept responsible for
cranking up the sanctions program was formerly headed by a dual citizen woman who resigned
suddenly after being exposed as an Israeli citizen-not hard to understand that sentiment in
that dept has not changed.
The other aspect here is the FDD as key supporter of these severe sanctions; very virulent
anti-Iranian vipers nest of ziocons with money bags from zionist oligarch funders.
Ho-hum. As I wrote earlier, just the daily breaking of laws meaning business as usual. As
noted, Russia has really upped the diplomatic heat on EU and France/Germany in particular,
and that heat will be further merited if the response is as b predicts from their past,
deplorable, behavior.
Much talk/writing recently about our current crisis being similar in
many ways to those that led to WW1, but with the Outlaw US Empire taking Britain's role. I
expect Iran's Iraqi proxies to escalate their attacks aimed at driving out the occupiers.
IMO, we ought to contemplate the message within this Strategic Culture editorial when it comes to the hegemonic relationship between
the Outlaw US Empire and the EU/NATO and the aims of both. The EU decided not to continue
fighting against the completion of Nord Stream, but that IMO will be its last friendly act
until it severs its relations with the Outlaw US Empire. With the Wall moved to Russia's
Western borders, the Cold War will resume. That will also affect Iran.
thanks b... it is interesting what a pivotal role israel plays in all of this... and why
would there be concern that biden would be any different then trump in revoking the jcpoa? to
my way of thinking, it is just pouring more cement and sealing the fate of the usa either
way, as an empire in real decline and resorting to more of the same financial sanctions as a
possible precursor to war.. frankly i can't see a war with iran, as the usa would have to
contend with russia and china at this point... russia and china must surely know the game
plan is exactly the same for them here as well.. as for europe, canada, australia and the
other poodles - they are all hopeless on this front as i see it... lets all bow down to the
great zionist plan, lol...
Yeah but at least Trump didn't start any new wars. /s
The Eurotools in Brussels are absolutely disgusting. A weaker bunch of feckless,
milquetoast satraps is difficult to imagine. The EU perfectly embodies the 21st century
liberal ethic: spout virtue signaling nonsense about peace, freedom, human rights and the
"rules based international order" while licking the boots of Uncle Scam and the Ziofascists
and going along with their war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Russia and China need to step up their game and boldly circumvent the collective
punishment sanctions that are choking the life out of Iran, Syria and Venezuela. They still
let the rogue states of the west get away with far too much.
The Teheran men will not surrender to the yankee herds and hordes. And less so the
telavivian.
It s easy to see that in the medium run this cruelly extended crime plays in chinese, russian
and shia hands.
And they must start immediately a backlash handing hundreds of special forces and weapons
opver to the Houthi hands.
Of course there is a war on, and it has been gathering force for some time.
Iran is but one more skirmish or battle. However, Xi and Putin are using what I call the
"Papou yes". You must always say "yes" as this way you avoid direct conflict, but then you
go and do exactly what you were going to do in the first place . The person who does the
demanding - having had his/her demands "met" has nothing further to add and will go away. (I
have seen this effective technique in action).
At the moment it appears that the aim of the subversive (military/CIA/NGO) wings of the
Empire are to start as many conflicts as possible. To isolate and overextend Russia, leading
to it's collapse. (As they claim to have done before.)
The "Alternative axis" is just carrying on with it's own plan to overextend and eventually
let the US dissolve into its own morasss. The opposition are trying to follow their own plan
without giving an opening for the US/NATO to use its numerical military advantage, by not
taking the bait.
The ultimate battle is for financial control of the worlds currency, or in the case of the
US, to halt the loss of it's financial power. To avoid that The next step could be the
introduction of a Fed. owned controlled and issued "digi-dollar", When all outstanding
"dollar assets" are re-denominated into virtual misty-money which is created exclusively by
the Fed. Banks become unnecessary as the Fed becomes the only "lender" available, Congress
redundant, debts no longer matter and so on. Who cares about the reserves held by China and
overseas "investors" if their use or even existence can be dictated by the Fed?
They have already published a "trial balloon" about introducing a digi-dollar.
Iran? the US is throwing ALL its cards into what looks like it's final battle to preserve
the dollars supremacy. Why cut ALL the Iranian financial system out of their sphere of
influence? Because it (thinks) it can and by doing so cower the wavering into obeying.
Thanks 'b', very well timed. I was actually heading to the open thread with this article
until I saw your piece. This Asia Times
article focuses on three key points:
- Iran has replaced the dollar with the Yuan as its main foreign currency
"This may become the east wind for the renminbi (yuan) and provide a new oil currency option
for traders in oil-producing countries, including Iran," an editorial on qq.com said. "
- Several large banks in Iran are developing a gold encrypted digital currency called
PayMon and had issued more than 1,000 crypto-currency mining licenses, which could promote
the development of crude oil. Domestic traders use cryptocurrency to import goods and bypass
American banks.
- The Iranian-Swiss Joint Chamber of Commerce
"Switzerland had received a special exemption from US supervisory authorities to allow the
SHTA operations."
It remains to be seen how effective the Swiss Humanitarian Trade Agreement actually is.
Some say it is nothing but a US propaganda stunt. Hopefully, that is not the case.
What does Iran need that they cannot get from China and Russia? The USA has cheap corn, and
the EU has... what, cheese? Other than that I don't see why Iran needs to trade with the
empire and its more servile vassals anyway.
Strange, that ther is a jewish or Israeki ´ animosity agains Iran (or agains tthe
Medtans -- as thy are all named in all Greek records(H, that theer is a jewish animosity
against, that ther is a jewish anikisit agains Iran (or the Medtans -- as thy are old ptt in
all Greek Strenge(Hellemistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reported to have liberatet the
Jews of Babilon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON
CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE
THE YEAR OF 1´2917! Iran (or the Medtans -- as thy are old ptt in all Greek
Strenge(Hellemistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reorted to have liberatet te´he Jews
of Babilon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON CHRISTANO"
-- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE THE YEAR OF
1´2917! ellenistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reorted to have liberatet te´he
Jews of Babylon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON
CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE
THE YEAR OF 2017
Quite impressed with all the theories about Europe and its behavior. The answer is very
simple, Europe is occupied by a foreign power, it is a colony. And all the qualifiers are
quaint.
I disagree. What did the EU did on Iran, compared to Russia and China? It stopped most trade with Iran, including the purchase of iranian oil, and it stopped all
investment projects. INSTEX is a joke. Meanwhile Germany recently banned Hezbollah.
Yes, they did vote for the JCPOA in the UN. I look at actions rather than words though,
and EU has imposed de facto sanctions on Iran.
Moreover, German FM Maas told Israel recently that efforts are underway to keep the Iran
arms embargo. (He is also a big "Russia fan" - sarc off)
In other words, we "support" the JCPOA, but in practice with arms and trade embargoes on
Iran continuing.
Yeah right.
Posted by: powerandpeople | Oct 9 2020 20:15 utc | 24
No, its not so simple, unless you claim that european russophobia started with the US and
did not exist before it. Guy Mettan has a good book on it. It is a thousand years old issue,
involving Catholicism, France, Germany, Sweden, Britain, and others.
Yes, the US wants to divide the EU and Russia. But the EU itself is rotten from
within.
Politics are more important than the economy, German Chancellor Merkel said in relation to
Russia.
"Drang nach Osten" - "Drive to the East".
Germany dreams of capturing Eastern Europe and using is as some sort of colonised labor
pool similar to what Latin America is for the US.
And this is why the EU, without any prodding, eagerly took the lead in the attempt of
colour revolution in Belarus, where it played far bigger role than the US.
Signing and adhearing to the JCPOA turned Europe and Iran from opponents into partners.
This is a great diplomatic achievement. However, no part of the JCPOA made the two allies or
obliged the European side to wage an economic war with the USA on behalf of Iran. On the
contrary, the Iranians would be the first to say they are no friends of Europa. They have
been complaining about "Western meddling" in their region for years. (Note that they don`t
differentiate but always speak collectively of "the West").
So that`s their chance to show the world how much of a sovereign nation they are and that
they can handle their problems without the "meddling" of the "despicable" Europeans. There is
no obligation - neither legal nor moral - for Europe to take the side of Iran in the US-Iran
conflict.
And actually it is both sides - both Iran and the USA - who are unhappy with the current
European neutrality.
Thanks to MoA for being one of the only honest brokers of news on Iran in the English
language. As an American citizen living abroad (in EU) I have a more jaded and at the same
time worried feeling about this.
Along with all the other stuff, including the current threat to close the U.S. embassy in
the Iraqi "Green Zone" and the accompanying military maneuvers, which would spark war in the
region, I see this hardening and expansion of sanctions as yet the next clue that the U.S.
and Donald Trump's regime are looking toward re-election and a hot war with/on Iran. Rattling
the cage ever more and backing Iran into the corner with brutal, all-encompassing sanctions
is already an act of war, usually the first prior to bombs falling. I can also see this green lighting Israeli or joint American-Israeli strikes on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons
development sites and other military and petro-state assets.
I hope I'm wrong but we've all seen this before and it never ends well. If the EU shows a
spine, or more likely Russia and/or China step in directly, perhaps the long desired
neocon/neolib/Zionist hot war against Iran can be avoided.
I think it is very important for the US to kill another 500,000 children via sanctions, in
order to demonstrate the importance of freedom and democracy and observing international law.
While reading this post I was thinking what MoA wrote in the last two paragraphs. And also
that Iran will just continue to turn to China, Russia, and others in the East.
It's disgusting to watch the people of the US/UK/EU go along with this. Western elites are
fat, lazy, vicious, and cruel.
"Europeans can not be helped. Ironically, it is their own rejection of their WW2 past that
causes them to reject the multipolar world and sovereignty as "primitive things from the
past"
plus, as you point out elsewhere, there are longer histories at play: the Crusades against
the Slavs, the Moors and the Turks (and the Arabs, in fact), the invention of "western
civilization" in the 19th century (Arians vs Semites, Europe vs Asia, ecc) ...
plus, there is the persisting aspiration for world domination, partly frustrated by WW1
and the upheavals of the XXth century, which transformed the UK and the whole of Europe (with
Japan, Australia, etc) in a junior partner of the new US Empire
(that's the other lesson learned from WW2: no single european power could dominate the
continent and the world, but they could dominate as junior partners under the new young
leader of the wolf pack, the US)
plus, there are is a class war that can be better fought, by national oligarchies, within
globalist rethoric and rules
plus, there are the US deep state instruments of domination over european national
states
but Europeans (and Usaians) do understand the language of force, and they have - at the
moment - encountered a wall in their attempts at expansion, in Iran, China, Russia,
Venezuela, ecc; an alternative multipolar alliance is taking shape
so they might attempt to win a nuclear war by 20 million deaths to 2 (or 200 to 20, who
cares), but they might also decide to tune down their ambitions and return to reality;
maybe
@m (#35)
EU promised to uphold JCPOA. They can't because of the US and they are doing next to nothing
to change that. EU isn't neutral. They are stooges. Iran is right to complain about it, the
US isn't.
Trump is a man of peace, he hasn't started any new wars - whatever that means, lol.
As far as
I know economic blocade is tantamount to war. If he wins reelection expect renewed kinetic
attacks on venezuela and Iran. He's already lined up his zionist coalition with arabic
satraps to launch his Iran quagmire. Trump is a deal maker, he understands the economy and
will bring back manufacturing jobs to Murikkka, lol. I'm sure Boeing execs in deep trouble
would love to sell plane to the Iranians but Mr. MIGA just made that impossible. Nothing to
worry about, there's always the next socialist bailout for Boeing funded by taxpayers -
suckers as Trump would call them. So much for winning, can't fix deplorable and stupid...
Btw b, Trump's opposition to the Iran deal has nothing to do with money or the zionist
lobby. Stable genius opposed JCPOA in 2015 even before announcing his run for the presidency.
It's not about the mula but all about the mollah's, lol: The Donald in his own words at a tea
party event in 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIDNonMDSo8
Ever since the Iranian revolution of 1979 multiple US regimes in DC have been totally
successful in making majority Iranian people everywhere in the world, understand that the US
is their chronic strategic enemy for decades to come. At same time, these US regimes have
equally been as successful in making American people believe Iran is their enemy.
The difference between this two side's belief is, that, Iranian people by experiencing US
regime' conducts have come to their belief, but the American people' belief was made by their
own regime' propaganda machinery. For this reason, just like the people to people relation
between the US and Russian people, Before and after the fall of USSR the relation between US
and Iran in next few generations will not come to or even develop to anything substantial or
meaningful. One can see this same trajectory in US Chinese relations, or US Cuban. Noticeably
all these countries relation with US become terminally irreparable after their revolutions,
regardless of the maturity or termination of the revolution. As much as US loves color
revolutions, US hates real revolutions. The animosity no longer is just strategic it has
become people to people, and the reason and blame goes to Americans since they never were
ready to accept the revolutions that made nations self-servient to their interests. The
bottom line truth is the US / and her poodles in europe know, ever since the revolution Iran
no longer will be subservient to US interests.
This is leverage to bargain away the oil pipeline to germany. That is what is behind it. You
scratch my back, the US is saying to the EU, in particular, Germany....
It's an
Economy based on Plunder! , so that's why sanctions here, there and everywhere!! But the
real problem is we aren't participating in the Plunder!! Sometimes you gotta use extreme
sarcasm to explain the truth of a situation, and that's what Max and Stacey do in their show
at the link. 13 minutes of honest reporting about the fraudulent world in which we live. As
for Jerome Powell, current Fed Chair, he's complicit in the ongoing criminal activity just as
much as the high ranking politicos. Bastiat laid it out 180 years ago, but we're living what
he described now. And that's all part of what I wrote @40 above. The moral breakdown occurred
long ago but took time to perfect.
I think it is crazy that EU allows US to manage SWIFT to the point they invent new entities
to sidestep SWIFT and US sanctions (which are weak and ineffective, but that is the
trajectory of their weak attempts at independence). Force SWIFT to equally service all legal
transactions according to EU law, and let US cut itself off from all international financial
transfers if it doesn't like using EU's SWIFT. US corps won't allow that to happen, it's just
that EU refuses to call US bluff. Of course they are now praying for Biden presidency, but if
they can't assert themselves it is all ultimately the same thing.
These 'foreign policy experts' think the trade war with China has been a mistake. But they
think Trump is too soft on Russia and he hasn't been tough enough on NK, Iran and Venezuela.
It has become a standard trick for outgoing US administrations to saddle the incoming
administration with set in stone policies and judicial appointments.
"Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of
campaign funds and the lobby provides those. The move is also designed to preempt any
attempts by a potentially new administration to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran."
Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump
administration.
The danger for the world is the Trump administration may go even further than additional
sanctions. So I refer to the previous post, US policy remains the same whatever bunch are the
frontmen.
When that attempt failed they worked on convincing the Sultan of Turkey to give them
someone else's homeland. The Zionist Zealot Mr Kalvariski became the administrator of the
Palestine Jewish Colonization Association with the aim of establishing a jewish suprematist
ghetto. Following that flop the Zionists turned to the hapless British and were rewarded by
Balfour with his notorious British government double cross of the Arabs. Now it's the turn of
the US and assorted captive nations to uphold and support tyranny and Talmudic
violence.
I am SLOWLY coming to the conclusion that DaTrumpster understands DaDeepState better than any
of us armchair pundits. His patient - and yes, perhaps faulty strategy - he's still standing
after ALL DaCrap that's been thrown at him.
All the 'EXPURTS' - including MoA - can only see part of DaPicture at best.
I've been as hard on DaTrumpster as anyone on DaConservative side - but I am SLOWLY coming to
understand WTF just might be going on.
Point - don't be too sure of your immediate inclinations - we ALL see through DaGlass DARKLY!
SWIFT is only a messaging system – SWIFT does not hold any funds or securities, nor
does it manage client accounts. Behind most international money and security transfers is the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) system. SWIFT is a vast
messaging network used by banks and other financial institutions to quickly, accurately, and
securely send and receive information, such as money transfer instructions.
Paul wrote:
"Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump
administration." Yes at least as much or more zionist. Nothing about Harris or Biden (or the DNC) says they won't be.
And hasn't it always been that way from one president to the the next? Was there ever one
that was less zionist than the predecessor? (Maybe they're all so close this is an impossible
question to answer, that too could be the case).
The sitting executive branch gives the favors right now and anyone incoming gives the
favors after they win and thus each election becomes a double windfall for the lobby
group?
A zionist double dip . Maybe most US voters could grasp it like that.
I can't back this up (much like my previous comment in this thread) but it's my
impression. It would probably take a lot of work to make sure it's right; one would have to
scrutinize so much over so many decades.
I nominate president Eisenhower as slightly less zionist on one occasion: during the
Anglo,French, Zionist Suez invasion of 1956 Eisenhower remarked after numerous UN resolutions
condemning the bandit state's aggression ' Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign
territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its
withdrawal?'
This could be a useful quote for todays world.
Later, in 1964, Eisenhower approved his hand picked emissary's US $150 million so called
Johnston Plan to steal the waters of the Jordan River and further marginalize the Palestine
Arabs and surrounding Arab states.
Sanctions aren't the story. Once all the players have left the JCPOA, either Israel or the US
can claim Iranians are at the point of producing a nuclear weapon. Without the JCPOA and
inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities it will be impossible to prove or deny the
allegations. Thus giving either the US or Israel justification it wants to conduct military
strikes against Iran. The only things stopping this from happening is if the EU stays in the
JCPOA...
Exactly the aim. I said so in an earlier post. This is all part of the program to create a
false justification to conduct military strikes inside Iran. At this point, I'm really
surprised that the U.S. even tries to construct these narratives after Obama's Syria and
Libya operations didn't even really bother, save for a few probably fake "chemical weapons"
attack they alleged Assad committed. Libya I don't remember hearing anything. The embassy
maybe? After the Soleimani strike and the shootdown of the U.S. drone, not to mention the
alleged Iranian attacks on ARAMCO's oil facilities, I'm really quite surprised something more
serious (not to minimize the awful acts of war which the sanctions definitely are) hasn't
already happened. It will soon, especially if Trump gets re-elected. Wonder what all of his
"no new wars" supporters will say then?
Everybody reading knows what SWIFT is. That's a nice attempt to circumscribe the overall
sanctions regime and paint it as "no big deal."
Crush Limpbro - Checked out your site. You've got a long way to go before you can
criticize MoA. Hope that comment draws a few clicks to keep you going, but I would caution
other barflies to use a proxy; could be a honey trap to collect IP addresses.
This United States imposed and Zionist inspired siege on Iran and its people will only
further strengthen the political and economic bonds with Russia and China. Meanwhile, the US
collapses from its internal social limitations and its abandonment of public healthcare
responses to the Corvid 19 pandemic. Europe it close behind the US in this respect.
What exactly is this 'Justification'.. . 'to conduct military strikes against Iran' that
you refer to hasbara boy? Failure to obey foreign imposed zionist diktats?
Would this 'justification' apply to the bandit state if it refused to abide by the NNPT
for example?
No double standards pass the test here.
Yet another proof that "Western values" and their "rules based international order" mean
exactly nothing.
In the past, the West at least kept up some pretense that it was wrong to target unarmed
civilians (still, they flattened Driesden; Hiroshima; North Korea, Vietnam, Laos). Today,
they do not care to be seen openly, cruelly, brutally, sadistically killing civvies. These
American bastards say, "... it is not killing if the victims drop dead later, like, not right
now. " Or, "... it became necessary to destroy Iran in order to save Iran."
Iran is perfectly correct to call this a crime against humanity for the West to starve a
population of food and medicine. This will boomerang just as the opium-pushing in China will
boomerang on the West.
Meanwhile, just as those drug-pushing English bastards earned themselves lordships and
knighthoods; just as presidential bastards retire to their Martha Vineyard mansions; so the
current crop of bastards in American leadership will retire to yet more mansions, leaving the
next couple generations to meet Persian wrath. The American way is to "win" until they are
tired of winning, no?
But in truth, in objective reality, only those who have lost their human-ness are capable
of crimes against humanity.
The US is cruising for a bruising in the middle east fucking with Iran like this. Not that the US hasn't deserved a good knockout punch the past 19 years since invading and
destroying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, etc. Regardless of their rhetoric, how the European rogues and rascals (France, Germany and the
UK) can sleep at night is beyond me.
Yes Psychochistorian @ 1, At the nation state level, EU support for blockade terror and
sanction torture (BT&ST), against reluctant nation states and non compliant individuals
within those nation states, logically suggests EU nation states are not independent sovereign
countries <=EU nation states exist in name only? Maybe its just like in the USA, these
private monopoly powered Oligarcks (PMPO), own everything (privately owned copyrights,
patents, and property) made possible by rules nation states turn into law. The citizens of
those privately owned EU nation states are victims <=in condition=exploitable. Maybe PMPOs
use nation states <=as profit support weapons, to be directed against <=any and all
<=competition, whereever and however <=competition appears.
The hidden suspects <=capital market linked crowds through out the world..
Media is 92% owned by six private individuals, of the seven typical nation state layers of
authority and power: 5 are private and two are public. Additionally, few in the international
organizations have allegiance to historic cultures of the nation state governed masses. It is
as if, the named nation states are <=threatened by knee breaking thugs, but maybe its not
threat, its actual PMPO ownership.
If one accepts PMPO <=to be in control of all of USA and all of allied nation state,
one can explain <=current BT&ST events. But private Oligarch scenarios <=raise
obvious questions, why have not the PMPO challenged East eliminated <=Israel, MSM
propaganda repeatedly blames or points to Israel <=to excuse the USA leaders for their
BT&ST policies. Seems the PMPO are <=using the nation states, they own <=to
eliminate non complying competition.
What is holding the East back? Russia and China each have sufficient oil, gas and
technology to keep things functional, so why has not the competition in the East taken Israel
out, if Israel is directing the USA to apply BT&ST against its competitors? Why is the
white House so sure, its BT&ST policies will not end up destroying Israel? Maybe because
Israel has no real interest <=in the BT&ST policy <=Israel is deceptions:fall guy?
The world needs to pin the tail on the party driving USA application of BT&ST because no
visible net gain to Governed Americans seems possible from BT&ST policies?
I think Passer @ 17 has hit the nail on its head. "The EU is trying to prop up the US
Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself. "
Sanctions aren't the story. Once all the players have left the JCPOA, either Israel or the
US can claim Iranians are at the point of producing a nuclear weapon.
So you put that forward as a justification for attacking Iran militarily, but that means
according to your logic you also have justification for attacking Israel or the US
militarily. The rules are the same for all, right?
Economic warfare is certainly effective. However, time is running out for these weapons as
America's lock on the world economy grows weaker. With a rapidly approaching expiry date, the
word out may be to use em or lose em.
In a zero-sum great game, it makes sense to deploy such weapons now insofar as an
opponent's loss is always a gain for oneself.
Donald Trump talked up his Iran policy in a profanity-laden tirade on Friday, telling
conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that Tehran knows the consequences of undermining the
United States.
"Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice: if you fuck around with us, if you do
something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done
before."
What a shit show we are seeing. What is the next phase of this civilization war that is not
a war because there are not enough dead bodies for some I guess?...but it sure looks like
war to me.
Well for the first time in history Iran's symbolic "Red Flag" is still flying above the
popular Jamkaran Mosque Holy dome. Perhaps the USA and its running dogs body count has risen
in Iraq and Afghanistan? How would we know. These things are disguised from the fearless
press in those countries ;)
Perhaps the dead and mangled are many but we do know that the US chief killer in
Afghanistan was reduced to ashes immediately following General Shahid Qassem Suleimanis
murder by the USA whilst on a diplomatic mission in Iraq.
In respect of b's observation above, the illegal occupier of Palestine is more likely
tipping millions into the Harris Presidency as well as the possible Trump Presidency. I doubt
either Harris or the biden bait and switch stooge would restore the JCPOA. Besides they would
not be invited to sit at the table any time soon IMO. They would likely refuse to any
conditions of reversing the sanctions and then carry on about all that 'unreasonable demands
by a terrorist state' stuff etc etc.
No, Iran will be getting on with its future in a multilateral world where the United
Nations has been reduced to pile of chicken dung by the USA while most other nations go along
with global lunacy.
You know what's telling about the bootlickers who hem and haw about U.S. policy with the T
Administration, but never mention Trump as the real source of it even when profuse Zionist
shit spills from his mouth on Limbaugh's show proving he's a Ziofascist pig?
What's telling is that these usual suspects jumped all over ARI @64 for zeroing in on
Trump's precise intentions with Iran but they gave a pass to the real HASBARIST in the room,
Crush Limbraw @60, exposing himself, putting his HARD-ON FOR TRUMP on full display.
@60 we ALL see through DaGlass DARKLY!
Speak for yourself- you Zionist MORON!
Ahhhhhh, you can always count on the DUPLICITY of MOA'S weathervane james and friends. Me,
I ain't here to win a popularity contest like weathervane; I'm here to kick ass when I
witness duplicity in action. My friend here is the truth that I'll defend to the grave.
********
Noooo, dum-dums Putin will not come to Iran's rescue when he's warm in bed with his
Zionist Oligarchs and Russian squatters whom he pays homage to from time to time when he
visits Ziolandia thanking them for choosing the stolen West Bank over Russia.
Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice. That's Trump blowhard
driving the drumbeat.
Just rescue me from my self-destructive self for 4 more years, oh kings of Zion and
Wall Street, and I'll give you WAR!!! all in CAPS with three exclamation points. The GREATEST
war you've ever seen.
When I read the Great Reset article on the World Economic Forum website it seems to me that
the western Globalists, in concert align the US and EU. That accounts for the basic vassal
arrangements that predominate but allow for some nonalignments on certain issues.
That is precisely what the Belarusian authorities announced when Tikhanovskaya left Minsk,
that she was helped in her way out, but we know how the MSM acts, they stick to their own
script, just like a Hollywood movie.
The Belarusians must be watching with great attention what is happening in Kirguizia,
riots and complete chaos, and thinking how lucky they were to avoid the color rev that was in
the menu for them, which the same methods, discredit the oncoming election, claim fraud after
it, use similar symbols like the clenched fist and the heart, new flag, start transliterating
family and geographical names to a mythical and spoken by a very small minority language and
then nobody knows if to spell Tikhanovskaya, Tsikhanouskaya or like the politically incorrect
but street wise Luka called her, Guaidikha. And that is Kirguizia, how about a shooting war
in Armenia and Azerbaijan, all those conflicts were unimaginable when the USSR existed, but
the empire even on his way down is insatiable.
There is over a million jews of Russian origin living in Israel, 20% of the population,
with deep roots in Russia, language, culture and relatives. Do not let partisanship for the
Dems blind you, a true successful leader is someone that defends his country's interests
while at the same time tries to have good relations with everybody else, obviously that
balance is not easy to achieve in a world full of conflicting interests, but so far Putin
seems to be balancing his act while not loosing sight of the main thing, Russia.
Putin will not come to Iran's rescue when he's warm in bed with his Zionist
Oligarchs
If Putin is so close to Zionists, then why does Russia block the Zionist regime-change in
Syria? Why has Russia denied Israel and USA entreaties to allow them to bomb Iran?
Not as strange as a mythological demigoddess that turned sailors into swain and that now
enjoys to plunge into the mud with her creatures. A bot, what an easy label, it has lost any
meaning.
special beings who was born with two extra eyes...in the back of my head.
Alaska yellow fin sole, not bad, from Bristol Bay, but the Melva -a tunafish species with
more oil in its meat- I cooked for lunch, just caught, has a lot more fish oil with its rich
contents of vitamin D, add sunny Mediterranean weather and that is my pill for today, trying
to keep the bug at bay.
Circe, why don't you do what your namesake would have done and whip yourself up some meds to
calm down? You're starting to lapse into excessive use of upper case, italics, exclamation
points, bolding, profanity, and of course, insults.
This may help. It looks like the orange man is in fact going down, so you will soon have
Joe and Kamal empowered to dismantle the evil Putin-Netanyahu-Trump axis, and put the US back
on the path to truth and justice.
The unilateral and illegal-under-JCPOA sanctions mean it's time for EU to either confront the
extraterritorial US policy it has clearly rejected in principle, or (more likely) acknowlege
that it remains in practice just a collection of 'client states'. A sad moment for me, but
useful for clarity.
Hard to understand but you guys are incapable of spelling the name of a once great US
city, San Francisco. I heard it has changed a lot, got to see long time ago, before the
digital craze.
This is a brief but subtle post by b, with quiet but telling headline. Perhaps, just
guessing, a new take on the post he was having difficulty with earlier? The question of the
EU is an interesting one - not to be considered as virulent as the former Soviet Union, but
somehow as tugged at by the components thereof...
Sanctions on Iran? We do know what Iran is capable of; surely we have not forgotten?
Indeed, by pressing these sanctions at this late date, the Trump administration surely has
not forgotten either the effect sanctions had on Russia. They were postive to that country's
independent survival, though the immediate effect was demonstrably harsh. So now, sanctions
on Iran? One doesn't have to be a world leader to suppose similar cause, similar effect.
Ah, Paco has a wonderful meal of a beneficial fish called the Melva! Bravo, Paco; all is
not lost! But you have hooked the sea-serpent as well -- take care! That one - carefully
remove the hook and set it free ;)
<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
Yes, it is time for EU countries to show their true colors which will be ass kissers for
empire, most likely.
Folks are saying Nord Stream II is being finished but will it ever go into use?
And of course this is not war because Trump hasn't started any wars, right?
What a shit show we are seeing. What is the next phase of this civilization war that is
not a war because there are not enough dead bodies for some I guess?...but it sure looks like
war to me.
The next phase would appear to be Kyrgyzstan: from Belarus east to Sinkiang and Hong Kong the
subversion and the attempts at regime change are constant.
While Eurasia seeks to unite for peace and prosperity, the United States and its sleazy
satrapy is constantly trying to divide and weaken, to undermine and to intimidate. In doing
so it relies heavily on abusing the tattered lineaments of democracy- electioneering and
propagandising, the relics of a western culture which has become nothing more than a hollow
shell containing an increasingly totalitarian plutocracy.
All this simply moves Iran into closer confederation with Russia and China and strengthens
its resolve to send US middle eastern troops packing. Soon there will be a strong
Russia-China-Iran axis that is immune to all Western sanctions. Those countries who are part
of the BRI will get privileged economic treatment. The advantages will become increasingly
apparent and the economic disadvantages of staying allied with the US will become
increasingly apparent as well, particularly in light of the approaching collapse of the
dollar. As long as we manage to avoid a hot war the civilizational die is cast; the US has
chosen its destiny, in the dustbin of history, at least as a neoliberal oligarchy. When and
how it will reinvent itself is an open question, but it is not unreasonable to think it will
take decades. While Europe will eventually align with Eurasia, it will take another
generation of politicians before that happens.
If Iran isn't self-sufficient now, it will be by the time the US is finished with it. That
isn't a comfortable place to be but with key sector support from the Eastern bloc it's at
least as manageable as Cuba. The question is whether and how fast the Eastern bloc can
consolidate its resources by e.g. petrodollar replacement and better shared infrastructure.
The Eastern bloc isn't ideal, but when the West is apparently encouraging something like a
holocaust of suffering humanity, it's the only other game in town.
High time for both Russia and China and Iran/Cuba/Venezuela to really get together and start
speaking with one voice and show the despicable USA/West/NATO that they will stand together
and defend each other. Otherwise it's all over.
Specific steps to implement:
1. create and begin using an alternative to the SWIFT and invite anyone who is being
sanctioned by USA/West to join them
2. openly and officially declare that their currencies are backed by gold
3. openly and officially begin to speak against USA's actions around the world at the UN and
invite anyone who is being sanctioned by USA/West to join them
4. get together and openly declare to the world they stand as one and to invite
anyone else who is being harassed by USA/West/NATO to join them
5. immediately begin clean up of all the terrorists/CIA Operatives in in Central Asia
otherwise they will be in deep trouble
what are Putin and Xi doing?? Come on guys, wake up!
In March, Germany announced that the first transaction had been completed using Europe's
INSTEX system to skirt sanctions -- more than a year after the scheme had supposedly been put
in place.
I haven't seen anything further about it. Has it enabled any significant level of
trade?
Why would anyone need anything not Made in China? Plus China is the EU's second highest trade
partner (after US) so Iran could have access to some of that if for some reason they needed
an EU product. . . .Meanwhile Iran will be even more self-sufficient, as Russia has become
with EU sanctions. . . .The US has been trying self-imposed "sanctions" (China uncoupling) to
become more self-sufficient but it's not working.
EU continues its self-imposed slide into irrelevance. I suppose a servant's life is an easier
life: you don't have to think for yourself and just need to please master. But it can hardly
be a satisfactory experience, can it? Especially when the collar is held by such as Trump and
Pompass.
The winds of change are coming and they will be interesting. China's economy is already
greater than the US and that will expand many fold over the next few decades. The $ economy
will not survive this, especially not as the US has shown it will use its power corruptly.
The EU batter consider this; do they want to be part of the past or the future?
There is something much more significant happening with Europe, that is more than the Iran
issue.
The EU is trying to prop up the US Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to
free itself.
The EU has chosen the side of the US against the multipolar world. It will be trying to
prop up the Empire.
It is becoming increasingly hostile to any country that isn't a puppet to the US, like
itself, and is lashing out at those countries. Like a zombie, it wants to infect others with
its infection, and turn every other country into US puppets too. It thinks that this is
normal and it wants to spread that "normality" to the rest of the world too.
Many analysts are already mentioning that the EU is becoming increasingly hostile to
Russia.
Recently, serious statements came from Russian officials:
"Russia will not follow EU and US rules".
"There will be no more business as usual between Russia and France and Germany".
"France and Germany are now leading the anti-russian block within Europe".
"Russia will no longer be dependent on the EU".
"Europeans have delusions of grandeur".
These are all statements by Lavrov and Zacharova.
Recently, we have seen Germany and France banning Huawei, Europe together with US blocking
the OPCW investigation at the UN, and Germany leading the charge at the UN stage against
China. EU also took the lead in the colour revolution in Belarus.
There are two recent statesments by the french foreign minister and by the EU commision
chief:
"Europe needs to unite against Russia and Turkey".
Surveys also show rising levels of anti-chinese hatred in Europe, and not only in the
US.
What has happened is far more serious than the europeans being "feckless U.S. ass
kissers". It is worse than that.
The EU chose the side of the US against the multipolar world. It does not want to free
itself from the US. Actually it thinks that it is normal to be a puppet, that others should
be US puppets too, and that a joint EU-US Empire should be supported, so that some kind of
world wide liberal utopia can be build by it.
Europeans are psychologically damaged by WW2 and this is affecting their geopolitical
behavior, turning them into forever puppets of the US.
They can not free themselves because when they were free once, they "did very bad things".
Therefore they should always follow their "better" and "Big Daddy" US, who "freed them from
themselves" and "put them in the right way".
Europeans can not be helped. Ironically, it is their own rejection of their WW2 past that
causes them to reject the multipolar world and sovereignty as "primitive things from the
past", and thus support a transnational globalist western empire that is here "to bring
Utopia on Earth". For them Russia, China, Iran, India, Turkey etc. are just a bunch of
primitives that are tryng to turn back the clock.
And thus it will increasingly start to lash out at any country that isn't a US puppet as
those countries prevent the coming of Utopia.
Selfishness may be exalted as the root and branch of capitalism, but it doesn't make you
look good to the party on the receiving end or those whose sympathy he earns. For that, you
need a government prepared to do four things, which each have separate dictums based on study,
theorization, and experience. Coercion: Force is illegitimate only if you can't sell it.
Persuasion: How do I market thee? Let me count the ways. Bargaining: If you won't scratch my
back, then how about a piece of the pie? Indoctrination: Because I said so. (And paid for the
semantics.)
Predatory capitalism is the control and expropriation of land, labor, and natural resources
by a foreign government via coercion, persuasion, bargaining, and indoctrination.
At the coercive stage, we can expect military and/or police intervention to repress the
subject populace. The persuasive stage will be marked by clientelism, in which a small
percentage of the populace will be rewarded for loyalty, often serving as the capitalists'
administrators, tax collectors, and enforcers. At the bargaining stage, efforts will be made to
include the populace, or a certain percentage of it, in the country's ruling system, and this
is usually marked by steps toward democratic (or, more often, autocratic) governance.
At the fourth stage, the populace is educated by capitalists, such that they continue to
maintain a relationship of dependency.
The Predatory Debt Link
In many cases, post-colonial states were forced to assume the debts of their colonizers. And
where they did not, they were encouraged to become in debt to the West via loans that were
issued through international institutions to ensure they did not fall prey to communism or
pursue other economic policies that were inimical to the West. Debt is the tie that binds
nation states to the geostrategic and economic interests of the West.
As such, the Cold War era was a time of easy credit, luring postcolonial states to undertake
the construction of useless monoliths and monuments, and to even expropriate such loans through
corruption and despotism, thereby making these independent rulers as predatory as colonizers.
While some countries were wiser than others and did use the funds for infrastructural
improvements, these were also things that benefited the West and particularly Western
contractors. In his controversial work Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins reveals
that he was a consultant for an American firm (MAIN), whose job was to ensure that states
became indebted beyond their means so they would remain loyal to their creditors, buying them
votes within United Nations organizations, among other things.
Predatory capitalists demand export-orientations as the means to generate foreign currency
with which to pay back debt. In the process, the state must privatize and drastically slash or
eliminate any domestic subsidies which are aimed at helping native industry compete in the
marketplace. Domestic consumption and imports must be radically contained, as shown by the
exchange rate policies recommended by the IMF. The costs of obtaining domestic capital will be
pushed beyond the reach of most native producers, while wages must be depressed to an absolute
bare minimum. In short, the country's land, labor, and natural resources must be sold at
bargain basement prices in order to make these goods competitive, in what one author has called
"a spiraling race to the bottom," as countries producing predominantly the same goods engage in
cutthroat competition whose benefactor is the West.
Under these circumstances, foreign investment is encouraged, but this, too, represents a
loaded situation for countries that open their markets to financial liberalization.
US diplomacy is turning into the not-so-subtle art of making demands and ultimatums, Sergey
Lavrov has lamented, as the Americans go it alone in restoring anti-Iran sanctions under a 2015
deal that no longer legally applies.
Washington's reasoning behind bringing back the UN sanctions against Iran looks
"funny," as the majority of UN Security Council members – 13 out of 15 – do
not support activating the 'snapback' mechanism, the Russian Foreign Minister said, in an
exclusive interview with the Al Arabiya news channel.
The council "clearly stated that there is no legal position or moral reasons for anything
close to the snapback and all the statements to the contrary are null and void," he
reminded his audience. The 'snapback' issue leaves Washington at loggerheads with even its
closest allies.
Earlier on Sunday, the three European signatories to the Iran deal – Germany, France
and the UK – stated the return of the sanctions will have no legal effect whatsoever.
However, the Trump administration continues to insist Washington now has the authority to
target any country breaching the "re-imposed" sanctions. For Lavrov, this is telling, in
terms of understanding the quality of US diplomacy.
The Americans lost any talent in diplomacy, unfortunately; they used to have excellent
experts, [but] now what they're doing in foreign policy is to put a demand on the table,
whether they're discussing Iran or anything else.
If their counterpart disagrees and refuses to toe the line, "they put an ultimatum, they
give a deadline and then they impose sanctions, then they make the sanctions
extra-territorial." Regrettably, the European Union also "is engaging in the same tricks
more and more," Lavrov noted.
On Saturday, Washington moved to bring back sweeping UN sanctions against Tehran, insisting
it was acting within its own right to do so as an original party to the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 pact Iran sealed with major world powers. The US left the deal
in 2018 following a decision by President Donald Trump.
"I can only remind them that they should respect the hierarchy of the American
administration, because their boss, President Trump, has personally signed an official decree
withdrawing the United States from the JCPOA," Lavrov added sarcastically.
Sanctions aside, Washington is also busy trying to prevent the lifting of the UN arms
embargo on Iran, set to expire on October 18. This endeavor doesn't make much sense either, the
Russian minister commented. "There is no such thing as an arms embargo against Iran," he
clarified. The UN Security Council reiterated the embargo will end on that date, and "there
would be no limitations whatsoever after the expiration of this timeframe."
Neoliberalism is about redistribution of wealth up -- that's why. And the state under neoliberalism ensured this with the
tax policy, wreaked anti-monopoly laws, deregulation, offshoring and other means
At the same time due to the Iron law of oligarchy organized minority (oligarchs) will always control unorganized
majority ("despicables") so chances to reverse the neoliberal transformation of the society which was the result of Neoliberal
Counterrevolutions of 1980th, currently are slim. Only some earthquake like evens, for example, another oil crisis or the loss by
the dollar of the status of reserve currency might change that.
The American people own most of the wealth – private and public – and most of
the information in the country. The top one percent do not.
The American people have most of the power in the country. The top one percent do not.
These assertions may surprise you, because the top one percent and the giant corporations
work overtime to control what you own . This means they do not have to seize what
you own so long as their control provides them with both riches and power over
you.
Let's spell this out with specifics. Our Constitution starts with the words, "We the People
"; it doesn't start with 'we the corporations' or 'we the Congress' or 'we the super-rich.' The
sovereign authority under the Constitution is us ; we the people are the bosses. But we give
our power away to the Big Boys who run the big companies that control most of our elected
politicians. The politicians in turn proceed to corrupt our elections with campaign money,
gerrymandering, deceitful ads, voter obstructions, and a totally dominant two-party duopoly.
This corporate state destroys competitive democracy which would give our votes meaning,
choices, and effectiveness.
Shouldn't we be discussing why, when we own the vast federal public land, one-third of
America – and the vast public airwaves, do we give control of these resources to
corporations every day of the year to profit from at our expense? We give the television and
radio stations, that block our voices, free control and use of the airwaves, 24/7. We receive
very little in royalties from the energy, mining, timber, and grazing companies extracting huge
wealth from our federal lands.
We send our tax dollars to Washington, D.C., and the federal government gives trillions of
these dollars to companies in the form of subsidies and bailouts.
Trillions of dollars are devoted to government research and development (R&D), which has
built or expanded private companies. These include such industries as aerospace,
pharmaceuticals, military weapons, computers, internet, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and
containerization.
Our taxpayer-funded R&D is essentially given away free to these for-profit businesses.
We the People receive no royalties nor profit-sharing returns on these public investments.
Worse, we pay gouging prices for drugs and other products developed with our tax dollars.
We have trillions of dollars in savings and retirement money placed in giant mutual and
pension funds. The managers of these institutions make big profits by investing your money in
the stock and bond markets. If you controlled these trillions of dollars in stocks and bonds
that you own, that is if there was real shareholder and bondholder power, you would control the
ownership of all the big companies and turn the tables on the Big Bosses. Polls show a big
majority of people think Big Business has too much power and control over us. Nonetheless, we
regularly give these plutocrats control over what we own.
We own our personal information. Yet, we give it totally free to the likes of Facebook,
Google, Instagram, and YouTube, etc. so they can make trillions of dollars selling data on what
we buy, what we like, what we think, and what we're addicted to in the marketplace. The
advertisers then pester us 24/7 and even betray our trust. Imagine Alexa eavesdropping in our
homes and businesses. High-tech companies should not be privy to our personal information.
Unfortunately, giving companies our personal information, from which they profit immensely
and gouge and penalize us profusely, started long ago. The moment we took out credit cards, for
example, we began to lose control of our money and our privacy. With the internet, companies
are generating new payment-system controls, with their dictatorial fine-print agreements and
never-ending additional surcharges, driven by their greedy overreaches.
People spend lots of time just trying to get through to these companies for refunds,
adjustments, corrections, and simple answers to their questions.
Why have we handed over the enormous assets we own to this expanding corporate state? Why
have we surrendered to statism or corporate socialism? The corporate "Borg" is sucking the
ready availability of the good life, decent, secure livelihoods assured by our collective
self-reliance, and the freedom to shape our future out of our political economy.
Why are we allowing the United States – this rich land of ours – to have so many
impoverished, powerless people, dominated by the few? With ever greater concentration or powers
under corrupt Trumpism and its corporate supremacists, control of our lives is getting
worse.
It starts with us being indoctrinated into being powerless (civic skills and practice are
not taught in schools). This leads to the people not taking control of Congress (only 535 of
them). We are allowing elections and debates to ignore raising these basic democratic issues of
who owns what and who should control our commonwealth.
David Bollier and his colleagues are working to have adults and students learn about the
commons – owned by all of us – and the few examples of people sharing in our
commonwealth. Through the Alaska Permanent Fund, every Alaskan gets about $2000 a year from the
royalties' oil companies pay for taking the people's oil from that state.
If you're interested in reading further about the "commons" we own but do not control go to
bollier.org and
breakingthroughpower.org . It's in our hands!
"If at any time the United States believes Iran has failed to meet its commitments, no
other state can block our ability to snap back those multilateral sanctions," Pompeo
declared in a statement posted on his official Twitter account on Sunday evening.
The top US diplomat was referring to the avalanche of sanctions Washington has been hellbent
on slapping on Tehran after the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) overwhelmingly rejected
the US resolution to extend a 13-year arms embargo against the Islamic Republic past October
earlier this week.
The humiliating defeat , which saw only one member
of the 15-nation body (the Dominican Republic) siding with the US, while China and Russia
opposed the resolution, and all other nations, including France and the UK, abstained, did not
discourage Washington, which doubled down on its threat to hit Iran with biting sanctions.
... ... ...
"Of course other states can block America's ability to impose multilateral sanctions. The
US can impose sanctions by itself, but can't force others to do it," Nicholas Grossman,
teaching assistant professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Illinois,
tweeted.
"That's what 'multilateral' means. Is our SecState really this dumb?" Grossman asked.
Daniel Larison, senior editor at the American Conservative, suggested that Pompeo might
be having a hard time grasping the meaning of the word 'multilateral'.
Some argued that Pompeo could not be unaware of the contradictory nature of his statement.
Dan Murphy, former Middle East and South Asia correspondent for the Christian Science
Monitor, called it "one of the most diplomatically illiterate sentences of all time."
"I guess the end game here is [to] alienate the rest of the world even further to feed his
persecution complex?" Murphy wrote.
John Twomey, 16 August, 2020
Explanation. What Pompeo understands and what many others can't grasp is that the US
decides if their sanctions are "multilateral" because the USA speaks for all other countries
whether they like it or not.
My Opinion, 17 August, 2020
Reminiscing of his shady past as a new CIA recruit he said. "We lied, we cheated and we stole". Apparently, Mikey didn't
do all too well in his literature classes, either and that's why the most suitable candidate from zionists perspective.
The Apple Bill passed the House overwhelmingly but then died in the Senate after a bureaucratic snafu for which Jobs forever
blamed Republican Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, then chair of the Finance Committee. Yet all was not lost: A similar bill passed
in California, and Apple flooded its home state with almost 10,000 computers. Apple's success in California gave it a leg up
in the lucrative education market as states around the country began to computerize their classrooms. But education was not
radically transformed, unless you count a spike in
The
Oregon Trail
–related deaths from dysentery. If anything, those who have studied the rapid introduction of computers into
classrooms in the 1980s and '90s tend to conclude that it exacerbated inequities. Elite students and schools zoomed smoothly
into cyberspace, while poorer schools fell further behind, bogged down by a lack of training and resources.
A young, charismatic geek hawks his wares using bold promises of social progress but actually makes things worse and gets
extremely rich in the process -- today it is easy to see the story of the Apple Bill as a stand-in for the history of the digital
revolution as a whole. The growing concern about the role that technology plays in our lives and society is fueled in no small
part by a growing realization that we have been duped. We were told that computerizing everything would lead to greater
prosperity, personal empowerment, collective understanding, even the ability to transcend the limits of the physical realm and
create a big, beautiful global brain made out of electrons. Instead, our extreme dependence on technology seems to have mainly
enriched and empowered a handful of tech companies at the expense of everyone else. The panic over Facebook's impact on
democracy sparked by Donald Trump's election in a haze of fake news and Russian bots felt like the national version of the
personal anxiety that seizes many of us when we find ourselves snapping away from our phone for what seems like the 1,000th
time in an hour and contemplating how our lives are being stolen by a screen. We are stuck in a really bad system.
This realization has led to a justifiable anger and derision aimed at the architects of this system. Silicon Valley executives
and engineers are taken to task every week in the op-ed pages of our largest newspapers. We are told that their
irresponsibility and greed have undermined our freedom and degraded our democratic institutions. While it is gratifying to see
tech billionaires get a (very small) portion of their comeuppance, we often forget that until very recently, Silicon Valley
was hailed by almost everyone as creating the path toward a brilliant future. Perhaps we should pause and contemplate how this
situation came to be, lest we make the same mistakes again. The story of how Silicon Valley ended up at the center of the
American dream in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, as well as the ambiguous reality behind its own techno-utopian
dreams, is the subject of Margaret O'Mara's sweeping new history,
The
Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America
. In it, she puts Silicon Valley into the context of a larger story about
postwar America's economic and social transformations, highlighting its connections with the mainstream rather than the
cultural quirks and business practices that set it apart.
The
Code
urges us to consider Silicon Valley's shortcomings as America's shortcomings, even if it fails to interrogate them
as deeply as our current crisis -- and the role that technology played in bringing it about -- seems to warrant.
S
ilicon Valley entered the public consciousness in the 1970s as something of a charmed place. The first recorded
mention of Silicon Valley was in a 1971 article by a writer for a technology newspaper reporting on the region's semiconductor
industry, which was booming despite the economic doldrums that had descended on most of the country. As the Rust Belt
foundered and Detroit crumbled, Silicon Valley soared to heights barely conveyed by the metrics that O'Mara rattles off in the
opening pages of
The
Code
: "Three billion smartphones. Two billion social media users. Two trillion-dollar companies" and "the richest people
in the history of humanity." Many people have attempted to divine the secret of Silicon Valley's success. The consensus became
that the Valley had pioneered a form of quicksilver entrepreneurialism perfectly suited to the Information Age. It was fast,
flexible, meritocratic, and open to new ways of doing things. It allowed brilliant young people to turn crazy ideas into
world-changing companies practically overnight. Silicon Valley came to represent the innovative power of capitalism freed from
the clutches of uptight men in midcentury business suits, bestowed upon the masses by a new, appealing folk hero: the
cherub-faced start-up founder hacking away in his dorm room.
The Code
both bolsters and revises this story. On the one hand, O'Mara, a historian at the University of Washington, is
clearly enamored with tales of entrepreneurial derring-do. From the "traitorous eight" who broke dramatically from the
Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory in 1957 to start Fairchild Semiconductor and create the modern silicon transistor to the
well-documented story of Facebook's founding, the major milestones of Silicon Valley history are told in heroic terms that can
seem gratingly out of touch, given what we know about how it all turned out. In her portrayal of Silicon Valley's tech titans,
O'Mara emphasizes virtuous qualities like determination, ingenuity, and humanistic concern, while hints of darker motives are
studiously ignored. We learn that a "visionary and relentless" Jeff Bezos continued to drive a beat-up Honda Accord even as he
became a billionaire, but his reported remark to an Amazon sales team that they ought to treat small publishers the way a lion
treats a sickly gazelle is apparently not deemed worthy of the historical record. But at the same time, O'Mara helps us
understand why Silicon Valley's economic dominance can't be chalked up solely to the grit and smarts of entrepreneurs battling
it out in the free market. At every stage of its development, she shows how the booming tech industry was aided and abetted by
a wide swath of American society both inside and outside the Valley. Marketing gurus shaped the tech companies' images,
educators evangelized for technology in schools, best-selling futurists preached personalized tech as a means toward personal
liberation. What emerges in
The
Code
is less the story of a tribe of misfits working against the grain than the simultaneous alignment of the country's
political, cultural, and technical elites around the view that Silicon Valley held the key to the future.
Above all, O'Mara highlights the profound role that the US government played in Silicon Valley's rise. At the end of World War
II, the region was still the sleepy, sun-drenched Santa Clara Valley, home to farms and orchards, an upstart Stanford
University, and a scattering of small electronics and aerospace firms. Then came the space and arms races, given new urgency
in 1957 with the launch of Sputnik, which suggested a serious Soviet advantage. Millions of dollars in government funding
flooded technology companies and universities around the country. An outsize portion went to Northern California's burgeoning
tech industry, thanks in large part to Stanford's far-sighted provost Frederick Terman, who reshaped the university into a hub
for engineering and the applied sciences.
Stanford and the surrounding area became a hive of government R&D during these years, as IBM and Lockheed Martin opened local
outposts and the first native start-ups hit the ground. While these early companies relied on what O'Mara calls the Valley's
"ecosystem" of fresh-faced engineers seeking freedom and sunshine in California, venture capitalists sniffing out a profitable
new industry, and lawyers, construction companies, and real estate agents jumping to serve their somewhat quirky ways, she
makes it clear that the lifeblood pumping through it all was government money. Fairchild Semiconductor's biggest clients for
its new silicon chips were NASA, which put them in the Apollo rockets, and the Defense Department, which stuck them in
Minuteman nuclear missiles. The brains of all of today's devices have their origin in the United States' drive to defeat the
Soviet Union in the Cold War.
But the role of public funding in the creation of Silicon Valley is not the big government success story a good liberal might
be tempted to consider it. As O'Mara points out, during the Cold War American leaders deliberately pushed public funds to
private industry rather than government programs because they thought the market was the best way to spur technological
progress while avoiding the specter of centralized planning, which had come to smack of communist tyranny. In the years that
followed, this belief in the market as the means to achieve the goals of liberal democracy spread to nearly every aspect of
life and society, from public education and health care to social justice, solidifying into the creed we now call
neoliberalism. As the role of the state was eclipsed by the market, Silicon Valley -- full of brilliant entrepreneurs devising
technologies that promised to revolutionize everything they touched -- was well positioned to step into the void.
The earliest start-up founders hardly seemed eager to assume the mantle of social visionary that their successors,
today's flashy celebrity technologists, happily take up. They were buttoned-down engineers who reflected the cool practicality
of their major government and corporate clients. As the 1960s wore on, they were increasingly out of touch. Amid the tumult of
the civil rights movement and the protests against the Vietnam War, the major concern in Silicon Valley's manicured technology
parks was a Johnson-era drop in military spending. The relatively few techies who were political at the time were
conservative.
Things started to change in the 1970s. The '60s made a belated arrival in the Valley as a younger generation of geeks steeped
in countercultural values began to apply them to the development of computer technology. The weight of Silicon Valley's
culture shifted from the conservative suits to long-haired techno-utopians with dreams of radically reorganizing society
through technology.
This shift was perhaps best embodied by Lee Felsenstein, a former self-described "child radical" who cut
his teeth running communications operations for anti-war and civil rights protests before going on to develop the Tom Swift
Terminal, one of the earliest personal computers.
Felsenstein believed that giving everyday people access to computers could
liberate them from the crushing hierarchy of modern industrial society by breaking the monopoly on information held by
corporations and government bureaucracies. "To change the rules, change the tools," he liked to say.
Whereas Silicon Valley
had traditionally developed tools for the Man, these techies wanted to make tools to undermine him. They created a loose-knit
network of hobbyist groups, drop-in computer centers, and DIY publications to share knowledge and work toward the ideal of
personal liberation through technology. Their dreams seemed increasingly achievable as computers shrank from massive,
room-filling mainframes to the smaller-room-filling minicomputers to, finally, in 1975, the first commercially viable personal
computer, the Altair.
Yet as O'Mara shows, the techno-utopians did not ultimately constitute such a radical break from the past. While their calls
to democratize computing may have echoed Marxist cries to seize the means of production, most were capitalists at heart. To
advance the personal computer "revolution," they founded start-ups, trade magazines, and business forums, relying on funding
from venture capital funds often with roots in the old money elite. Jobs became the most celebrated entrepreneur of the era by
embodying the discordant figures of both the cowboy capitalist and the touchy-feely hippie, an image crafted in large part by
the marketing guru Regis McKenna. Silicon Valley soon became an industry that looked a lot like those that had come before. It
was nearly as white and male as they were. Its engineers worked soul-crushing hours and blew off steam with boozy pool
parties. And its most successful company, Microsoft, clawed its way to the top through ruthless monopolistic tactics.
Perhaps the strongest case against the supposed subversiveness of the personal computer pioneers is how quickly they were
embraced by those in power. As profits rose and spectacular IPOs seized headlines throughout the 1980s, Silicon Valley was
championed by the rising stars of supply-side economics, who hitched their drive for tax cuts and deregulation to tech's
venture-capital-fueled rocket ship. The groundwork was laid in 1978, when the Valley's venture capitalists formed an alliance
with the Republicans to kill then-President Jimmy Carter's proposed increase in the capital gains tax. They beta-tested
Reaganomics by advancing the dubious argument that millionaires' making slightly less money on their investments might stifle
technological innovation by limiting the supply of capital available to start-ups. And they carried the day.
As president, Ronald Reagan doubled down with tax cuts and wild technophilia. In a truly trippy speech to students at Moscow
State University in 1988, he hailed the transcendent possibilities of the new economy epitomized by Silicon Valley, predicting
a future in which "human innovation increasingly makes physical resources obsolete." Meanwhile, the market-friendly New
Democrats embraced the tech industry so enthusiastically that they became known, to their chagrin, as Atari Democrats. The
media turned Silicon Valley entrepreneurs into international celebrities with flattering profiles and cover stories -- living
proof that the mix of technological innovation, risk taking, corporate social responsibility, and lack of regulation that
defined Silicon Valley in the popular imagination was the template for unending growth and prosperity, even in an era of
deindustrialization and globalization.
T
he near-universal celebration of Silicon Valley as an avatar of free-market capitalism in the 1980s helped ensure that
the market would guide the Internet's development in the 1990s, as it became the cutting-edge technology that promised to
change everything. The Internet began as an academic resource, first as ARPANET, funded and overseen by the Department of
Defense, and later as the National Science Foundation's NSFNET. And while Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, he did spearhead
the push to privatize it: As the Clinton administration's "technology czar," he helped develop its landmark National
Information Infrastructure (NII) plan, which emphasized the role of private industry and the importance of telecommunications
deregulation in constructing America's "information superhighway." Not surprisingly, Gore would later do a little-known turn
as a venture capitalist with the prestigious Valley firm Kleiner Perkins, becoming very wealthy in the process. In response to
his NII plan, the advocacy group Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility warned of a possible corporate takeover of
the Internet. "An imaginative view of the risks of an NII designed without sufficient attention to public-interest needs can
be found in the modern genre of dystopian fiction known as 'cyberpunk,'" they wrote. "Cyberpunk novelists depict a world in
which a handful of multinational corporations have seized control, not only of the physical world, but of the virtual world of
cyberspace." Who can deny that today's commercial Internet has largely fulfilled this cyberpunk nightmare? Someone should ask
Gore what he thinks.
Despite offering evidence to the contrary, O'Mara narrates her tale of Silicon Valley's rise as, ultimately, a success story.
At the end of the book, we see it as the envy of other states around the country and other countries around the world, an
"exuberantly capitalist, slightly anarchic tech ecosystem that had evolved over several generations." Throughout the book, she
highlights the many issues that have sparked increasing public consternation with Big Tech of late, from its lack of diversity
to its stupendous concentration of wealth, but these are framed in the end as unfortunate side effects of the headlong rush to
create a new and brilliant future. She hardly mentions the revelations by the National Security Agency whistle-blower Edward
Snowden of the US government's chilling capacity to siphon users' most intimate information from Silicon Valley's platforms
and the voraciousness with which it has done so. Nor does she grapple with Uber, which built its multibillion-dollar leviathan
on the backs of meagerly paid drivers. The fact that in order to carry out almost anything online we must subject ourselves to
a hypercommodified hellscape of targeted advertising and algorithmic sorting does not appear to be a huge cause for concern.
But these and many other aspects of our digital landscape have made me wonder if a technical complex born out of Cold War
militarism and mainstreamed in a free-market frenzy might not be fundamentally always at odds with human flourishing. O'Mara
suggests at the end of her book that Silicon Valley's flaws might be redeemed by a new, more enlightened, and more diverse
generation of techies. But haven't we heard this story before?
If there is a larger lesson to learn from
The
Code
, it is that technology cannot be separated from the social and political contexts in which it is created. The major
currents in society shape and guide the creation of a system that appears to spring from the minds of its inventors alone.
Militarism and unbridled capitalism remain among the most powerful forces in the United States, and to my mind, there is no
reason to believe that a new generation of techies might resist them any more effectively than the previous ones. The question
of fixing Silicon Valley is inseparable from the question of fixing the system of postwar American capitalism, of which it is
perhaps the purest expression. Some believe that the problems we see are bugs that might be fixed with a patch. Others think
the code is so bad at its core that a radical rewrite is the only answer. Although
The
Code
was written for people in the first group, it offers an important lesson for those of us in the second: Silicon
Valley is as much a symptom as it is a cause of our current crisis. Resisting its bad influence on society will ultimately
prove meaningless if we cannot also formulate a vision of a better world -- one with a more humane relationship to technology -- to
counteract it. And, alas, there is no app for that.
Adrian Chen
Adrian Chen is a freelance writer. He is working on a book about Internet culture.
Technocracy is a part of the neoliberal elite and they are interested in continuation of globalization. As such they are fierce
opponents of Trump "national neoliberalism" project. Nothing personal, strictly business.
It is September 2020. Americans are focused on an election between an Orange Fascist
criminal and an old-school right-wing Democrat war criminal. Where Donald Trump projects
chaos and disorder, Biden projects stability, order, and a return to normalcy. If Trump is
the virus, then surely Biden is the cure"
so this *** clown spends 5000 words on the criminal operation in Libya under
Obama/Biden/Clinton which leave the country in utter chaos and this is his money shot? Orange
man bad fascist, old school democrat War Criminal normal.
what a load of tripe
Ace006 , 5 hours ago
A+. He provides much needed clarity and perspective on the Libyan tragedy and then crashes
into the usual delusional, leftist landfill of fascism, murder of black youth, BLM (all
hail), and Biden as, so help me, some kind of a cure for anything.
The scorching desert sun streams through narrow slats in the tiny window. A mouse scurries
across the cracked concrete floor, the scuttling of its tiny feet drowned out by the sound of
distant voices speaking in Arabic. Their chatter is in a western Libyan dialect distinctive
from the eastern dialect favored in Benghazi. Somewhere off in the distance, beyond the
shimmering desert horizon, is Tripoli, the jewel of Africa now reduced to perpetual war.
But here, in this cell in a dank old warehouse in Bani Walid, there are no smugglers, no
rapists, no thieves or murderers. There are simply Africans captured by traffickers as they
made their way from Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, or other disparate parts of the continent
seeking a life free of war and poverty, the rotten fruit of Anglo-American and European
colonialism. The cattle brands on their faces tell a story more tragic than anything produced
by Hollywood.
These are slaves: human beings bought and sold for their labor. Some are bound for
construction sites while others for the fields. All face the certainty of forced servitude, a
waking nightmare that has become their daily reality.
This is Libya, the real Libya. The Libya that has been constructed from the ashes of the
US-NATO war that deposed Muammar Gaddafi and the government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The
Libya now fractured into warring factions, each backed by a variety of international actors
whose interest in the country is anything but humanitarian.
But this Libya was built not by Donald Trump and his gang of degenerate fascist ghouls. No,
it was the great humanitarian Barack Obama, along with Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Susan Rice,
Samantha Power and their harmonious peace circle of liberal interventionists who wrought this
devastation. With bright-eyed speeches about freedom and self-determination, the First Black
President, along with his NATO comrades in France and Britain, unleashed the dogs of war on an
African nation seen by much of the world as a paragon of economic and social development.
But this is no mere journalistic exercise to document just one of the innumerable crimes
carried out in the name of the American people. No, this is us, the antiwar left in the United
States, peering through the cracks in the imperial artifice – crumbling as it is from
internal rot and political decay – to shine a light through the gloom named Trump and
directly into the heart of darkness.
There are truths that must be made plain lest they be buried like so many bodies in the
desert sand.
To understand the depth of criminality involved in the US-NATO war on Libya, we must unravel
a complex story involving actors from both the US and Europe who quite literally conspired to
bring about this war, while simultaneously exposing the unconstitutional, imperial presidency
as embodied by Mr. Hope and Change himself.
In doing so, a picture emerges that is strikingly at odds with the dominant narrative about
good intentions and bad dictators. For although Gaddafi was presented as the villain par
excellence in this story told by the Empire's scribes in corporate media, it is in fact Barack
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, former French President Nicholas Sarkozy, French
philosopher-cum-neocolonial adventurist Bernard Henri-Levy, and former UK Prime Minister David
Cameron, who are the real malevolent forces. It was they, not Gaddafi, who waged a blatantly
illegal war on false pretenses and for their own aggrandizement. It was they, not Gaddafi, who
conspired to plunge Libya into chaos and civil war from which it is yet to emerge. It was they
who beat the war drums while proclaiming peace on earth and good will to men.
The US-NATO war on Libya represents perhaps one of the most egregious examples of US
military aggression and lawlessness in recent memory. Of course, the US didn't act alone as a
wide cast of characters played a role as the French and British were keen to involve themselves
in the reassertion of control over a once lucrative African asset torn from European control by
the evil Gaddafi. And this, only a few years after former UK Prime Minister and Iraq war
criminal Tony Blair met with Gaddafi to usher in
a new era of openness and partnership.
The story begins with Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, journalist, and
amateur foreign service officer who fancied himself an international spy. Having failed to
arrive in Egypt in time to buttress his ego by capitalizing on the uprising against former
dictator Hosni Mubarak, he quickly shifted his attention to Libya, where an uprising in the
anti-Gaddafi hotbed of Benghazi was underway. As Le Figaro
chronicled , Henri-Levy managed to talk his way into a meeting with then head of the
National Transition Council (TNC) Mustapha Abdeljalil, a former Gaddafi official who became
head of the anti-Gaddafi TNC. But Henri-Levy wasn't there just for an interview to be published
in his French paper, he was there to help overthrow Gaddafi and, in so doing, make himself into
an international star.
Henri-Levy quickly pressed his contacts and got on the phone with French President Nicholas
Sarkozy to ask him, rather bluntly, if he'd agree to meet with Abdeljalil and the leadership of
the TNC. Just a few days later, Henri-Levy and his colleagues arrived at the
Élysée Palace with TNC leadership at their side. To the utter shock of the
Libyans present, Sarkozy tells them that he plans to recognize the TNC as the legitimate
government of Libya. Henri-Levy and Sarkozy have now, at least in theory, deposed the Gaddafi
government.
But the little problem of Gaddafi's military victories and the very real possibility that he
might emerge victorious from the conflict complicated matters as the French public had become
aware of the scheme and was rightly lambasting Sarkozy. Henri-Levy, ever the opportunist,
stoked the patriotic fervor by announcing that without French intervention, the tricolor flag
flying over five-star hotels in Benghazi would be stained with blood. The PR campaign worked as
Sarkozy quickly came around to the idea of military intervention.
However, Henri-Levy had a still more critical role to play: bringing the US military
juggernaut into the plot. Henri-Levy organized the first of what would be several high-level
talks between US officials from the Obama Administration and the Libyans of the TNC. Most
importantly, Henri-Levy set up the meeting between Abdeljalil and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton. While Clinton was skeptical at the time of the meeting, it would be a matter of months
before she and Joe Biden, along with the likes of Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and others would
be planning the political, diplomatic, and military route to regime change in Libya.
The
Americans Enter the Fray
There would have been no war in Libya were it not for the US political, diplomatic, and
military machine. In this sense, despite the relatively meager US military involvement, the war
in Libya was an American war. That is to say, it was a war that could not have happened were it
not for the active collaboration of the Obama Administration with its French and British
counterparts.
As Jo Becker of the NY Times explained
in 2016, Hillary Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, a prominent Libyan politician who would go on
to become the new Prime Minister of post-Gaddafi Libya, and his associates, in order to assess
the faction now garnering US support . Clinton's job, according to Becker, was "to take measure
of the rebels we supported" – a fancy way of saying that Clinton attended the meeting to
determine whether this group of politicians speaking on behalf of a diverse group of
anti-Gaddafi voices (ranging from pro-democracy activists to outright terrorists affiliated
with global terror networks) should be supported with US money and covert arms.
The answer, ultimately, was a resounding yes.
But of course, as with all America's warmongering misadventures, there was no consensus on
military intervention. As Becker reported, some in the Obama Administration were skeptical of
the easy victory and post-conflict political calculus. One prominent voice of dissent, at least
according to Becker, was former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Himself no dove, Gates was
concerned that Clinton and Biden's hawkish attitude toward Libya would ultimately lead to an
Iraq-style political nightmare that would undoubtedly end with the US having created and then
abandoned a failed state – exactly what happened.
It is important to note that Clinton and Biden were two of the principal voices for
aggression and war. Both were supportive of the No-Fly Zone from early on, and both advocated
for military intervention. Indeed, the two have been simpatico in nearly every war crime
committed by the US in the last 30 years, including perhaps most egregiously in support of
Bush's crime against humanity that we call the second Iraq War.
As former Clinton lackey (Deputy Director of Secretary of State Clinton's Policy Planning
staff) Derek Chollet explained, "[Libya] seemed like an easy case." Chollet, a principal
participant in the American conspiracy to make war on Libya who later went on to serve directly
under Obama and at the National Security Council, inadvertently illustrates in stark relief the
imperial arrogance of the Obama-Clinton-Biden liberal interventionist camp. In calling Libya an
"easy case" he of course means that Libya was a perfect candidate for a regime change operation
whose primary benefit would be to boost politically those who supported it.
Chollet, like many strategic planners at the time, saw Libya as a slam dunk opportunity to
turn the demonstrations and uprisings of 2010-2011, which quickly became known as the Arab
Spring, into political capital from the Democratic camp of the US ruling class. This rapidly
became Clinton's position. And soon, the consensus of the entire Obama
Administration.
Obama's War Off the Books
One of the more pernicious myths of the US war on Libya was the notion – propagated
dutifully by the defense lobbyists-cum-journalists at major corporate media outlets –
that the war was a cheap little war that cost the US almost nothing. There were no American
lives lost in the war itself (Benghazi is another mythology to be unraveled later), and very
little cost in terms of "treasure", to use that despicable imperialist phrase.
But while the total cost of the war paled in comparison to the monumental-scale crimes in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the means by which it was funded has cost the US far more than dollars;
the war on Libya was a criminal and unconstitutional endeavor that has further laid the
groundwork for the imperial presidency and unconstrained executive power. As the Washington
Post
reported at the time:
Noting that Obama had said the mission could be paid for with money already appropriated to
the Pentagon, [former House Speaker] Boehner pressed the president on whether supplemental
funding would be requested from Congress.
Unforeseen military operations that require expenditures such as those being made for the
Libyan effort normally require supplemental appropriations since they are outside the core
Pentagon budget. That is why funds for Afghanistan and Iraq are separate from the regular
Defense Department budget. The added costs for some of the operations in Libya are minimal But
the expenditures for weapons, fuel and lost equipment are something else.
Because the Obama Administration did not seek congressional appropriations to fund the war,
there is very little in the way of paper trail to do a proper accounting of the costs of the
war. As the cost of each bomb, fighter jet, and logistical support vehicle disappeared into the
abyss of Pentagon accounting oblivion, so too did any semblance of constitutional legality. In
essence, Obama helped establish a lawless presidency that not only has little respect for
constitutionally mandated checks and balances, but completely ignores the rule of law. Indeed,
some of the crimes that Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr are guilty of have their direct
corollary in the Obama Administration's prosecution of the Libya war.
So where did the money come from and where did it go? It's anybody's guess really, unless
you're one of those rubes who likes taking the Pentagon's word for it. As a Pentagon
spokesperson told CNN in 2011,
"The price tag for U.S. Defense Department operations in Libya as of September 30 [was] $1.1
billion. This included daily military operations, munitions, the drawdown of supplies and
humanitarian assistance." However, to illustrate the downright Orwellian impossibility of
discerning the truth, Vice President Joe Biden doubled that number when speaking on CNN,
suggesting that "NATO alliance worked like it was designed to do, burden-sharing. In total, it
cost us $2 billion, no American lives lost."
As is painfully evident, there is no clear way to know how much was spent other than to take
the word of those who prosecuted the war. With no congressional oversight, and no clear
documentary record, the war on Libya disappears down the memory hole, and with it the idea that
there is a separation of powers, Congressional authority to make war, or a functioning
Constitution.
America's Dirty War in Libya
While the enduring memory of Libya for most Americans is the political theater that resulted
from the attack on the US facility in Benghazi that killed several Americans, including US
Ambassador Stevens, it is not nearly the most consequential. Rather, America's use of terrorist
groups (and the insurgents who emerged from them) as military proxies may perhaps be the real
legacy from a strategic perspective. For while the corporate media presented the narrative of
spontaneous protests and uprisings to overthrow Gaddafi, it was in fact a loose network of
terror groups that did the dirty work.
While much of this recent history has been buried by bad reporting, establishment
mythmaking, and conspiracist muddying of the truth, it was surprisingly well reported at the
time. For example, as the New York Times wrote of one of the
primary US-backed forces on the ground during the war in 2011:
"The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was formed in 1995 with the goal of ousting Colonel
Qaddafi. Driven into the mountains or exile by Libyan security forces, the group's members
were among the first to join the fight against Qaddafi security forces Officially the
fighting group does not exist any longer, but the former members are fighting largely under
the leadership of Abu Abdullah Sadik [aka Abdelhakim Belhadj]."
Even at the time, there was considerable unease among Washington's strategic planners that
the Obama Adminstration's embrace of a terror group with known links to al-Qaeda could prove to
be a major blunder. "American, European and Arab intelligence services acknowledge that they
are worried about the influence that the former group's members might exert over Libya after
Colonel Qaddafi is gone, and they are trying to assess their influence and any lingering links
to Al Qaeda," the Times noted.
Of course, those in the know at the various US intelligence agencies already had a pretty
good sense of who they were backing, or at least the elements likely to be involved in any US
operation. Specifically, the US knew that the areas from which it was drawing anti-Gaddafi
opposition forces was a hotbed of criminal and terrorist activity.
"Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone.
Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the
Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to
Iraq may be linked with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's (LIFG) increasingly cooperative
relationship with al-Qa'ida which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qa'ida on
November 3, 2007 The most common cities that the fighters called home were Darnah [Derna],
Libya and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with 52 and 51 fighters respectively. Darnah [Derna] with a
population just over 80,000 compared to Riyadh's 4.3 million, has far and away the largest
per capita number of fighters in the Sinjar records."
It was known at the time that the majority of the anti-Gaddafi forces hailed from the region
including Derna, Benghazi, and Tobruk – the "Eastern Libya" so often referred to as
anti-Gaddafi – and that the likelihood that al-Qaeda and other terror groups were among
the ranks of the US recruits was very high. Nevertheless, they persisted.
Take the case of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, charged by the US with guarding the CIA
facility in Benghazi at which Ambassador Stevens was murdered. As the Los Angeles Times
reported in 2012:
"Over the last year, while assigned by their militia to help protect the U.S. mission in
Benghazi, the pair had been drilled by American security personnel in using their weapons,
securing entrances, climbing walls and waging hand-to-hand combat The militiamen flatly deny
supporting the assailants but acknowledge that their large, government-allied force, known as
the Feb. 17 Martyrs Brigade, could include anti-American elements The Feb. 17 brigade is
regarded as one of the more capable militias in eastern Libya."
But it wasn't just LIFG and al-Qaeda affiliated criminal groups entering the fray thanks to
Washington rolling out the blood-stained red carpet.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
A longtime asset of the US, General Khalifa Hifter and his so-called Libyan National Army
have been on the ground in Libya since 2011, and have emerged as one of the primary forces
vying for power in post-war Libya. Hifter has a long and sordid history working for the CIA in
its attempts to overthrow Gaddafi in the 1980s before being resettled conveniently near
Langley, Virginia. As the
New York Times reported in 1991:
The secret paramilitary operation, set in motion in the final months of the Reagan
Administration, provided military aid and training to about 600 Libyan soldiers who were
among those captured during border fighting between Libya and Chad in 1988 They were trained
by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills, officials said, at
a base near Ndjamena, the Chadian capital. The plan to use the exiles fit neatly into the
Reagan Administration's eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi.
Hifter, leader of these failed efforts, became known as the CIA's "Libya point man,"
having taken part in numerous regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to
overthrow Gaddafi in 1996. So, his arrival in 2011 at the height of the uprising signaled an
escalation of the conflict from an armed uprising to an international operation. Whether
Hifter was directly working with US intelligence or simply complimenting US efforts by
continuing his decades-long personal war against Gaddafi is somewhat irrelevant. What matters
is that Hifter and the Libyan National Army, like LIFG and other groups, became part of the
broader destabilization effort which successfully toppled Gaddafi and created the chaotic
hellscape that is modern Libya.
Such is the legacy of the US dirty war on Libya.
The Past is Prologue
It is September 2020. Americans are focused on an election between an Orange Fascist
criminal and an old-school right-wing Democrat war criminal. Where Donald Trump projects chaos
and disorder, Biden projects stability, order, and a return to normalcy. If Trump is the virus,
then surely Biden is the cure.
It is September 2020. Libya prepares to enter its eighth year of civil war. Slave markets
like the one in Bani Walid are as common as youth literacy centers were in Gaddafi's Libya.
Armed gangs and militias wield power even in areas nominally under government control. A
warlord regroups in the East as he looks to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab
Emirates for support.
It is September 2020 and the US-NATO war on Libya has faded to a distant memory as other
issues like Black Lives Matter and police murder of Black youth have captured the public
imagination and discourse.
But these issues are, in fact, united by the bond of white supremacy and anti-Blackness. The
Libya once known as the "Jewel of Africa," a country that provided refuge for many sub-Saharan
African migrant workers while maintaining independence from the US and the former colonial
powers of Europe, is no more. In its place is a failed state that now reflects the kind of
vicious anti-Black racism forcefully suppressed by the Gaddafi government.
Libya as the global exemplar of the exploitation and disposability of the black body.
Squint a little and you can see President Joe Biden getting the old band back together.
Hillary Clinton welcomed into the Oval Office as an influential voice, someone to give words to
the demented thoughts of the living corpse serving as Commander-in-Chief. Derek Chollet and Ben
Rhodes laughing together as they buy another round at their favorite DC hangout, toasting to
the re-establishment of order in Washington. Barack Obama as the éminence grise behind
the political resurgence of the liberal-conservative dominant structure.
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
AVmaster , 13 hours ago
Number of wars the boy king and his minions started: 6, that we know of: Ukraine, Syria,
Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.
(Not withstanding the proxy wars during the "muslim spring" like in egypt)
Number of wars Trump has started: 0
This is NOT including the ongoing wars that trump inherited but has dialed back
somewhat, like reduced troop presence in iraq/afghan.
fucking truth , 12 hours ago
Trump hasn't started any but he still feeds the beast, hopefully his next four will see
a correction to this behaviour,one can only hope.
ay_arrow 2
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Has no choice.
The economic reality is the MIC is a big part of the US domestic economy.
Shut that down and you would go into a full blown depression.
If you build bullets, missile, bombs, F35's etc. they have to be used or you have to
start scrapping them.
The issue though is not the MIC as such but the lack of any moral integrity and
disregard for human life by those mentioned in the article. Once the country was put into
this position by them it is much more difficult to extract.
Now I think those in the article should be prosecuted for not going to Congress to
declare a war and fund it correctly as this is supposed to be the check and balance of a
rogue president.
play_arrow
Bollixed , 2 hours ago
Regarding the MIC, many of those companies consist of manufacturing entities comprised
of engineers, factory infrastructure and logistics infrastructure funded by government
spending that could realistically be 'retooled' to produce things that could benefit
society instead of piss money away on the tools of destruction. America is in need of a
massive infrastructure overhaul from our electric grid to our transportation modes to name
just two. Nothing is preventing those MIC giants from refocusing their efforts toward a
better America versus the current focus they are paid to undertake. It's a matter of
priorities and right now I find their priorities misplaced and vulgar.
The money is available at their current funding rates, the manpower and brain power is
there, what is lacking is the will to turn the ship around and start putting humans before
profits. There is no need to go into a full blown depression as with the shut down of that
capacity if those entities are given a mandate to redirect their output for the good of
society and create things of lasting value. In other words, take the retooling mindset that
turned refrigerator factories into weapons factories like they did in WW2 and take the
weapons factories and turn them into entities for the betterment of society. And then wean
them off of the government teat.
DeepStateThrombosis , 3 hours ago
Unused funds from the Pentagon can be redirected to the Wall and other Defense
protections not known to the public at this time.
ay_arrow
DaiRR , 1 hour ago
DemoRats and NeoCons will try every way possible to keep the wars going.
The USA is incredibly blessed to have Donald J. Trump in the White House.
play_arrow
1
muggeridge , 11 hours ago
To think Americans demonstrated in the millions to stop the Vietnam war exposed as a
fraud by Daniel Ellsberg in the PENTAGON PAPERS. Obama did admit that the removal of
Ghadaffy was his biggest foreign policy mistake. Clinton also in trouble over Tunisia while
Secretary of State with US ambassador killed in 2012. She took responsibility but was found
not to have acted improperly by US Congress. However her part in this tragedy remains an
open question. Today the only Middle Eastern country still standing IRAN supported by
China. Syria supported by Russia. Cold Wars never go away?
play_arrow 2
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Cold war is an inevitable consequence of a MIC that must continually produce and expend
munitions to keep its part of the economy going.
2 play_arrow
scaleindependent , 10 hours ago
Final Jeopardy, genius!
What is Syria and Iran?
HIS acts against those countries ARE acts of war.
lay_arrow
muggeridge , 10 hours ago
Regime Change as our modus operandi to serve the cause of military superiority as if
pre-set by computer.
How everything became war and the military became everything by Rosa Brooks Tales of the
Pentagon.
Something funny happened on the way to the forum; Broadway musical. Hail
Caesar?
play_arrow
CheapBastard , 7 hours ago
Hey, military contractors have to put food on the table also, even if it means murdering
millions of innocent people in Yugoslavia (like Clinton did) or in the middle east (like
Bush and Obama did).
play_arrow
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Yep some people don't get it.
With all the military contractors now moved into peaceful protests maybe we actually
need more war to keep them gainfully employed.
Get the picture?
2 play_arrow
SoilMyselfRotten , 3 hours ago
HIS acts against those countries ARE acts of war
Don't forget also blockading Venezuela
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
No Libya story is complete without mentioning David Shayler- the MI6 agent turned
whistleblower who was tasked with blowing up Gaddafi in his car - but refused to do so when
he was accompanied by his wife and children. (under the Tony Blair govt). -yep.
Shayler later went into a bizarre series of personas -which is understood by many as self
preservation tactic - (testimony of mentally unstable is not recognised in court - so no
threat).
Then there's the covert ratlines of gathering the ex-Libyan army weapons & shipping
them to ISIS Syria via Turkey and White Helmets (see James Corbett) organised by HRC via
Benghazi -so no rescue for US Ambassador & team (RIP) HRC prefer'd keep op covert.
Carrier 50 miles off coast -HRC killed US Diplomats & support team. -Biden knew.
Also check out the courageous Dilyana Gaytandzhieva who runs armswatch .com and some SM
in her name. for laypersons overview of extent of games-within-games &
wheels-within-wheels in arms trade/ chem weapons "research". She's currently researching
the Beirut bombings - which will be another revelation when it hits.
sauldaddy , 11 hours ago
That awkward moment when you find out the first Black President brought slavery BACK to
Africa .....Q- That awkward moment when you find out the first Black President brought
slavery BACK to Africa
_arrow
. . . _ _ _ . . . , 13 hours ago
Qaddafi kept African migrants out of the Mediterranean and away from Europe's
shores.
Sarkozy couldn't allow that knowing what was in store for Europe.
He predicted what would happen to Europe were he to be deposed. He was right. Macron's (and
Merkel's) policies are proof.
That and the gold dinar was his undoing.
.
P.S. Don't tell the leftists, but Libya was the only case of a successful socialist state.
On second thought, it might be funny to see them publicly defending Qaddafi.
Ms No , 13 hours ago
That may work for a while when you pull black gold out of the ground, for a while. Oil
declines and free **** armies breed faster. Then you are Saudi Arabia and we are about to
see how that ends up.
play_arrow
not dead yet , 12 hours ago
Libyan youth unemployment was over 30% because these spoiled kids with their families
getting oil checks in the mail every month refused to do menial jobs. Qaddafi kept the
black Africans out of the boats by letting them do the work the kids and other Libyans
thought was beneath them. A lot of the money the Africans made they sent home which was
spent in the local economies which increased jobs there. Libya also invested heavily in
Africa which created lots of jobs. These actions kept the number of Africans headed to
Europe a trickle. Once Qaddafi was gone so were all the jobs in Libya and the money that
flowed into Africa dried up and jobs were lost. A lot of businesses the Libyans created in
Africa were confiscated by the local governments and no doubt given to cronies who ran them
into the ground.
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
Gaddafi thought wrongly that job description would save him. Also suggested trading oil
for €uro's over dollar$, which blew the lid on powder keg. In the end they say it was
the oil, though my thinking was DC think tanks didn't want a monied "Mexico" on south coast
of Euroland - could make Europe too financially powerful & too difficult to
control.
play_arrow
. . . _ _ _ . . . , 6 hours ago
I had heard about selling oil for Euros in relation to Saddam, but not to Qaddafi.
Qaddafi was about the gold Dinar.
??
No1uNo , 6 hours ago
Yep, it's what can happen if I'm not careful when I post and try to watch a documentary
at the same time.
Thanks for your vigilance.
Find the Libyan gold that dissapeard.... and one likely finds the source of the
overthrow....
quanttech , 13 hours ago
try the french treasury...
Bill300 , 12 hours ago
Look no further than Hillary's brother. General Gage, a former Special Forces Colonel,
had been hired by Hillary, et al, to assemble a merc army to secure Qaddafi's gold amidst
the fog of war and transport it to Haiti to be laundered thru Hugh Rodham's little gold
mine. Does anyone really think Obama sold enough books to buy a $12M seaside mansion in
Massachusetts and the Washington DC home?
These people are so evil.
Justapleb , 12 hours ago
That's certainly titillating. Do you have a source that puts these things together?
I tried some Google searches, but I already know those searches are censored so it is
not an easy thing to find
dark pools of soros , 4 hours ago
you gotta get your hands dirty if you want to know whats in the soil
DaCrustyDad , 13 hours ago
Imagine if some country invaded us and slaughtered about 23.5 million (apples for apples
based on the 500k civilians killed out of 7,000,000)? Obama and the Clinton's should be
playing basketball at Pelican Bay the rest of their lives at best.
quanttech , 12 hours ago
It's mind boggling.
Trump dropped 7400 bombs on Afghanistan in 2019. That would be like 60,000 bombs
dropping on the US one year.
Arch_Stanton , 9 hours ago
Libya was a modern, secular Arab state. A model for the rest of Islam. Who the f@@k
decided it was appropriate to reduce Libya to a 19th century sh1thole?
Shifter_X , 9 hours ago
Hillary ******* Clinton
Constitution101 , 6 hours ago
on instruction from the cabalist banksters who never permit a rival currency system.
Qaddafi's gold-backed dinar throughout Nth Africa would have exposed and displace their
petrodollar scam in which they infinitely print their cronies untold trillion$.
end the fed, and all central banks.
Best Satan in Town , 6 hours ago
That's the story in a nutsh-ell
desertboy , 10 hours ago
The petrodollar centrality gets monotonously overplayed. For anyone who cares to look,
the geopolitics of the West/NATO are the geopolitics of all its central bank owners as an
interlinked group, who are keeping all their options open.
Destroying Libya went beyond the petrodollar to the fight for influence in Africa's
future, where France's history in Africa has made it the designated hitter. Note the new
CFR-type buzz on a "resurgent France" due to this role.
No1uNo , 8 hours ago
I maintained elsewhere on this thread, was advice of DC think tanks he was taken out.
Because a well funded, well educated, low cost, labor factory resource state on south coast
of eurozone makes europe too competitive to DC tank's interests. (and open Africa's growing
economy to cheap - outside eurozone - euro profiting business interests).
Gaddafi was never a threat to Europe, but europe buying his oil and building his
economy......different story.
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
B-I-N-G-O !
get your case of beer for that one!
not dead yet , 11 hours ago
Qaddafi would have not met with death if he only wanted to sell oil in the Gold Dinar.
Instead he wanted the Gold Dinar as the currency for all of Africa. The system was being
set up along with 4 central banks to manage African economic and monetary affairs when
Libya was attacked. Libya also invested heavily in Africa creating lots of jobs and
enhancing communications. Unlike the IMF and World Bank with their draconian edicts
attached to their loans, like no loans for fossil fueled power plants and other eco
garbage, almost guaranteeing default the Libyan Development Fund attached no such garbage
to their loans making success possible. Europe was charging Africa $500 million a year for
use of their satellites. Qaddafi ponied up $300 million of the $400 million needed to put
up Africa's first satellite screwing Europe out of $500 million a year. Qaddafi was also
the driving force for Africa for Africans and which kept US African command and it's troops
out of Africa. Now the US has troops all over Africa. Qaddafi really was bad. Bad for
Western exploitation of Africa.
At the time of Qaddafi's demise the Libyan Development Fund had $32 billion in banks
around the world. Western governments and media tried to claim it was money stolen by
Qaddafi. Last I knew the Libyan's, the rightful owners of that money, haven't seen a
penny.
Constitution101 , 6 hours ago
great info.
got a good concise source?
dark pools of soros , 4 hours ago
you have to dig deep to get little nuggets of truth about Libya since so many sides want
to tarnish and twist to push their agenda and greed on its riches
SmokeyBlonde , 12 hours ago
America, as a country, deserves whatever happens just for electing and re-electing
Obama.
Far too many grifters, Bolsheviks, pedocrats, and sub-moron IQ feral ghetto rats
oh-so-pleased with themselves for being so enlightened and bringing chaos to the whole F'n
world.
ReflectoMatic , 11 hours ago
The Democrats are working with the globalist at the United Nations & World Economic
Forum. The program being run is the destruction of the United States and elimination of
humans, per instructions from "The Cult of Rasur", which is located in the jungle at Mount
Rasur in Costa Rica but now renamed as the United Nations University For Peace. The
university teaches occult and meditation and only graduates 20 students per year, those
students then take positions of influence within the UN. The cult was founded by Maurice
Strong & Dr Muller, Strong also created the Agenda 21 & World Economic Forum, plus
in 1982, the more exclusive secret group of 300 called just "World Forum" which met in Vail
Colorado near his hippie commune at the Baca Grande in the San Luis Valley.
The GAIA Theory which was converted into GAIA Religion at the Maurice Strong Hippie
Commune in Colorado. David Perkins was there, apparently one of the first hippies to arrive
at the commune around 1978. In this podcast we get a rare look into the mindset of the
globalist and the creation of Agenda 21.
It's not clear if David Perkins & his partner, Chris O'Brian, are aware of Maurice
Strong & Klaus Schwab conducting the special and secret World Forum of 300 at Vail in
1982. At that 1982 event the concepts David Perkins describes, combined with concepts
gotten by paranormal activities at Mount Rasur in Costa Rica, were passed down to the 300
and thus began the creation that has brought the world to a standstill.
Chris O'Brian has an interesting podcast also, describing the Maurice Strong hippie
commune, in this he describes meeting Lawrence Rockefeller at the commune.
And finally, who the heck is this guy, the one in the middle? MJ-12 captured this photo
of him in Hollywood in 1972, he was then usually seen in company of Curtis LeMay, grandson
of the General who founded JPL NASA MJ-12, then in 1982 he was at that World Forum in Vail
and in charge of covertly poisoning them all with LSD. He was born in Berkley or Alameda in
1951 while his mother was at theater watching "Day The Earth Stood Still". Seems there is a
message which needs to be understood.
David Champaign, night manager at the Christie Lodge in Avon Colorado, can give further
description and verification that the ultra-secret World Forum did occur.
If you listened to that podcast, there was mention of the "group of psychics" at the
Baca hippie commune. The guy in the photo, the link just above, the photo was taken in the
presence of Allen J Funk MJ-12, Funk's only friend took the photo, Bob Custer. Bob shared
hotel rooms with the Stones & Monkeys while on concert tour as official photographer.
The guy in the photo and Bob were taken one night, in Allen's white Cadillac convertible,
to a house in the hills east of JPL Pasadena. There he met Bob's ex, Val, and Val's work
associates, the work Val and associates did was some secret psychic project in Central
America and perhaps in Colorado, usually Val just came over to Bob's house to visit when
Val was not off at those remote locations. Secret about it they were.
Shifter_X , 8 hours ago
These are self-loathing humans. Imagine wanting to destroy the human race.
SMH
bobroonie , 13 hours ago
Obama bombed Libya in defense of Islamic terrorists he sold weapons to. 600 requests for
more security from Ambassador Stevens unanswered.. But when defense contractor Osprey
Global's Sidney Blumenthal called Clinton gave him special treatment. Lots of money to be
made for a defense contractor and the Secretary of State that starts the war.
not dead yet , 12 hours ago
At the time Stevens died, he was not murdered he died of smoke inhalation as the
invaders set the place on fire and the safe room wasn't air tight, Benghazi was the most
dangerous place on earth for diplomats. Attempted murders and kidnappings of diplomats were
so rife that most governments closed their missions and evacuated their people. Stevens was
well aware of this and he went to Benghazi, the US Embassy is in Tripoli, anyway with his
last meeting running guns with the Turks. By doing so he signed his death warrant.
According to many at the time Stevens was begging for more security shortly before he left
for Benghazi he was offered a military security detachment that was already in Tripoli and
Stevens refused. Seems Stevens and Hillary didn't want the military to know what they were
up to.
quanttech , 12 hours ago
the ambassador got what was coming to him. he was a terrorist, plain and simple.
the rest of the Americans were rescued ... by Qadaffi loyalists. the Americans are shy
to admit this.
David2923 , 5 hours ago
Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:
• There are no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free for all its
citizens.
• There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to
all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state pays the
average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house,
equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms – all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great
Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
• A home considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi's Green Book it states:
"The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not
be owned by others.")
• All newlyweds in Libya receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to
buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is credited directly to the bank accounts of all
Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child receives US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50% of the price.
• The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local can purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the
finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to
doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya,
the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US
$2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were
literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though
much of this is now frozen globally.
You have explained why Libya was perfectly ripe for looting by the US Evil Empire and
its slave states.
dark pools of soros , 5 hours ago
Yes I've been shining a light on this for years. The true history of Libya should red
pill EVERYONE that can still think for themselves.
We are destroying George Washington statues while worshiping a black african american
president who destroyed the one rare prosperous socialist African nation.. which now has
slave trading!!!! all because it didn't share it's water to french/italian bottlers. And of
course the Gold Dinar becoming the African currency.
Lokiban , 11 hours ago
Gadhaffi's two mistakes leading to this war.
Threaten to sell his sweet oil in gold dinars
Threaten French president Sarkozy to pull out all of his money out of France and reveal
to the public the donations he made to the French presidential campaign of Sarkozy, which
we know is illegal because foreigners can't donate money.
That sealed his fate. America needed to stop this gold for oil scheme just like it did
in Iraq and French president Sarkozy's presidency was ont he line.
NuYawkFrankie , 12 hours ago
Slick Willy --> War Criminal
Chimp --> War Criminal
Obongo --> War Criminal
Hillarity --> War Criminal
Groper Joe --> War Criminal
Etc... etc... etc...
Are you at least BEGINNING to see a pattern here???
If not, you soon will do as 'the chickens come home to roost' and ZOG focusses it's
attention on YOUR a$$!
Apeon , 11 hours ago
Apparently you are not old enough to remember Johnson
NuYawkFrankie , 8 hours ago
I'm holding "Johnson" as we speak... and the most I can accuse him of is being a naughty
- sometimes a VERY naughty- boy. Looks like he's due for another spanking!
NAV , 2 hours ago
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
Obama left this country and Libya in rags, what else is there to say.
Yet Obama lives, while Gaddafi is dead, a man who had the good of his people in mind and
already was using primary water from which eventually all of Africa could be watered and
developed into a paradise for his people, a people who live on a continent rich with more
natural resources than any other.
But this could not be allowed by the Devil's Globalists who want to own all the world's
resources in order to make beggars of all mankind. Obama was their man. He not only
betrayed Africa but all men for a $40,000,000 pot of silver proffered by the world enemy of
liberty - the DEEPSTATE.
NAV , 2 hours ago
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
Obama left this country and Libya in rags, what else is there to say.
Yet Obama lives, while Gaddafi is dead, a man who had the good of his people in mind and
already was using primary water from which eventually all of Africa could be watered and
developed into a paradise for his people, a people who live on a continent rich with more
natural resources than any other.
But this could not be allowed by the Devil's Globalists who want to own all the world's
resources in order to make beggars of all mankind. Obama was their man. He not only
betrayed Africa but all men for a $40,000,000 pot of silver proffered by the world enemy of
liberty - the DEEPSTATE.
you know it makes sense , 5 hours ago
Who writes this crap and who believes a word of it ?.
No mention that Gaddafi planned to set up a new gold backed African money to sell his
oil rather than the euro or the dollar. 143+ tons of gold and 140 tons of silver went
missing.
It was because of this lie and NATO's involvement in the destruction of Libya that both
Russia and China vowed never again to allow this to happen to another country
taglady , 7 hours ago
Trump: "lock her up" became "she's been through enough." What has she been through
exactly? "Make America great again" became we need to bail out Boeing and the rest because
of an "invisible enemy." It's invisible alright, because it doesn't exist. The only
invisible enemy are the parasites shoveling our money into their own very deep pockets in
every conceivable way. Like Biden and his entire family and the Clintons and the Obamas and
many others have been doing for many years. Like Bush and Cheney made out so well after
911. That's how Gates and the pharmaceutical industry became so bloated while real
Americans have struggled to make ends meet.
taglady , 7 hours ago
Interesting coalition between finance, government and media. Like when Bush announced
the necessary, unconstitutional war and changes to our society after 911. We didn't get to
vote on these changes. No referendum ever happened. Just an announcement in the media and
media spin on public opinion, then preplanned actions by corrupt officials. This alliance
was never more obvious than during the cv response. We are censored and silenced while
liars and thieves are given the bully pulpit to beat us over the head with their idiocracy
to enrich very few parasites, again. Then the public is blamed for the rogue actions of
government/ business/media. America is bad. We just keep voting for these dummies. Except
our voting system is run by the same corrupt dummies who keep getting re-elected. Hmmm.
Just like they did to Kadafi and many others. Suddenly Libya is poor. What happened to all
of Kadafi's gold? Probably the same thing that happened to the Pentagon trillions and SS
"surplus" and public pensions across America. Taxation without representation leaves us
broke, without a voice and broken. What are we going to do about it?
Iconoclast27 , 1 hour ago
The problem is you believe imperialism and colonialism has ended in the African
continent when that clearly isn't the case, this Libyan regime change op being the latest
example of interference you are claiming no longer exists.
John C Durham , 1 hour ago
Actually the end of colonialism that FDR ("Winston, Colonialism is the Cause of this
War. This war is going to end all Colonialism".) wished for is hardly over. We got
Democratic Party's Truman, not the great Henry Wallace, remember?
Libya only proves this true.
LEEPERMAX , 5 hours ago
America's "BOTCHED CIA OPERATION OF THE CENTURY" as they funneled GADDAFI WEAPONS from
the PORT OF BENGHAZI into SYRIA as OBAMA & CO. completed their agenda to DESTABILIZE
THE MIDDLE EAST and eventually ALL OF EUROPE.
NO MORE . . . NO LESS
QABubba , 5 hours ago
This is the very reason I sat out the 2016 election. They say citizens don't vote
foreign policy but I did. The "We came, we saw, he died" statement illustrated that our
leaders didn't have a clue as to the geopolitical damage we had done. The US supported a
"no fly zone" in the UN Security Council. Russia supported it. Gaddafi declared his own,
stating that none of his air force would fly. The US and their allies quickly "redefined"
it to mean they could destroy his air force on the ground, and once destroyed, any of his
antiaircraft guns, and once destroyed, any of his tanks and artillery (which don't fly),
and his troop convoys.
Gaddafi's, Russia's, perhaps North Korea's big mistake was believing the US would stand
by their agreement in the UN Security Council. This and the Eastward creep of Nato may very
well be the deciding factor's in Putin's view that he has no responsible actors in the West
to deal with. North Korea was watching. Any dream of getting a denuclearized North Korea
just receded by about 50 years.
And of course, our presstitute media had a starring role as always. The average American
thinks this was a just war, and knows nothing of the slave markets, and nothing about the
flood of African immigrants, who are majority muslim, and have no plans whatsoever to
assimilate, into Europe. The leaders of France and supposedly Great Britain have stabbed
their citizens in the back, as they will now have to watch European culture destroyed.
Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago
Many thanks are due to Draitser for this excellent report on the vile activities of the
US Evil Empire in Libya. The power motives have been laid bare, but the massive greed of
the US/EU imperial elites have not been detailed. The greed for Libyan oil by France and
Italy is well known but the US also looted Libyan gold, just as they looted Ukrainian gold
after the 2014 Maidan coup.
By removing Gaddaffi (and who can forget Clinton's evil words "We came, we saw, he
died") and looting the gold they scuppered the plans to create a gold-backed dinar for all
of Africa, that would have challenged the use of USD, French-controlled "Franc" and other
fiat currencies.
That would have been shocking for the US/EU imperial elite that regards Africa as their
private fiefdom to loot at will.
Combined with a lust for power, the US/EU imperial elites have an insatiable greed.
After all, what use is an empire if the elites can't gorge themselves at will?
lastugro , 10 hours ago
... and Medvedev led Russia abstained (did not veto the vote) at the UNSC session where
the intervention was approved. Russia bears a tacit responsibility.
Michael Norton , 11 hours ago
Obama supplied ISIS with leftover weapons from the Libya operation to take out Bashar
Assad in Syria. That didn't work out for him too well, did it? Got an ambassador and some
CIA spooks killed in Benghazi.
dogfish , 9 hours ago
And Trump steals the oil, the oil that is desperately needed by the suffering Syrians.
Trump is a real humanitarian.
Maghreb2 , 5 hours ago
Obama believed every word he was fed about the R2P Right to Protect fantasy concocted at
the U.N. At the same time if you knew how dangerous the man was with his Green Revolution
and Desert sorcery you would have had him killed.
The first step of his plan was the Libyan African Gold Dinar which would have been a
commodity backed gold cuerrency. This would have broken Rothschild and most of the colonial
banking systems. On its own it was a just move but not even the Chinese could have an
African Bloc form that fast with that much growth. Imploding the CFA system would have
destroyed France as we know it and made it poorer than Poland.
Second factor was his ruthless plans to deal with his Islamic Nationalist and Monarchist
"Brothers". Gaddafis Green revolution could have spread across the desert wastes and easily
overthrown the Al Sauds and trapped Arab natioanlists in their citites. Not a powerful
fighter but understood desert warfare. It was the cost of Soviet equipment and the French
adapted technicals that made him weaker. The Wars of the Sahara desert like those of
Polisario Front and Libyan Chad War were decided by mobility.
Finally there were reports amongst the occultists that the man was obsessed with the
Occult and the Djinn. Giving a warlord his own banking system and access to African black
Magic was enough even for the Jesuits to view the man as a threat to global peace. Rumours
the djinns warned him of advance of air strikes and gave strength to his soldiers in the
deserts made him a force to be reckoned with in his borders. The association with Abu Nidal
is rumoured to have revealed things about the nature of these desert beings. If he had the
innate gift for it his tribe probably would have joined us at some point. Reports he had
fallen out with the real Green a man a sage and advisor to the Islamic leaders point to a
major rupture with the Islamic creed.
Only God can really judge whether his plan to emancipate Africa was his own power grab
to free the continent or another mad man trying to join the global elite by enslaving
them.
It would appear, at this point in time, that regardless of motive of his plan, the
US-backed alternative has turned out far worse. The only positive result is more money in
the pockets of the MIC and the opportunity to play war games in the desert.
Maghreb2 , 2 hours ago
Like I said he was a dangerous man. It takes one to rock the boat like he did. End of
the day the system could have been put in place for the African Gold Standard to start to
expand into areas that were tired of the Central African Franc system but it would have
destroyed Rothschild and led to hundreds of million of Black Muslims having resources to
throw at Israel.
Making Chad, Senegal and Mali into something like Yugoslavia with Chinese and Russian
Weaponry was beyond the imaginings of Africom. Would have lowered the birth rates with the
development and solved the migration and economic crisis. Having these countries like
Sweden would have also created living space for white liberals who were highly educated.
Instead all the money vanished with the Kleptokrats. Its only insane Facists who want dead
Africans on their doorsteps in Berlin and on the television that agree with this
madness.
Euafrica, Eurabia could be avoided by making sure the Africans slow their birth rates
through development and saving wealth rather than following it to Europe when the big men
run with gold and dollars.
At the same time he was known as a devil to the Arabs and the dissidents. Sort of like
Rockefeller with the company towns and corporate face. You ask the bastards to resign and
why all these people has vanished and gives you statistics on how many electrical
appliances have been handed out and says he was never in charge and you don't know how the
system works.
Hard to say but he played the game. Robbed Bunker Hunt which was enough for us. Bunker
C%nt as we called him when he tried to bring down the Morgue in Texas. Stuff like that is
why the Illuminati are feared. Its hard for anyone to gauge what is going on and what the
domino effects are. He was trained by the Americans and British and supplied with Socialist
apparatus. Gianni Agnelli the suavest yid since Joseph kept NATO off his back. He had ties
to the U.S deep State as well but that goes back to Wheelus.
Like we said about the Occult everyone has a backer but that man had demons watching
over him. According to some. Thin line between a Djinn and Shaytan when politics and murder
get involved.
Failed nation states make a perfect platform for a profitable global criminal
enterprise.
voting machine , 6 hours ago
Allen Dulles couldn't have scripted this operation any better.
This is right out of the CIA hand book. Regime change 101
Jackprong , 7 hours ago
As is painfully evident, there is no clear way to know how much was spent other than to
take the word of those who prosecuted the war. With no congressional oversight, and no
clear documentary record, the war on Libya disappears down the memory hole, and with it the
idea that there is a separation of powers, Congressional authority to make war, or a
functioning Constitution.
Got an answer for this: CUTBACKS!
bshirley1968 , 3 hours ago
" The story begins with Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, journalist,
and amateur foreign service officer who fancied himself an international spy. "
The real reason is the threat against the `dollar`.
JeanTrejean , 6 hours ago
It's the Frenchmen Sarkozy and B.H. Levy who are responsible for this agression.
The USA and NATO (outside Europe) were just "dumb followers".
Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago
Nothing dumb about Obomber: why did he loot and murder in Libya (or Yemen, Ukraine,
Syria etc)? Because he CAN!!!
Joiningupthedots , 21 minutes ago
Everything The West touches turns to rat ****.
Mercifully Russia recognised its mistake with Libya and stepped in to save Syria from
the same fate.
Every country, its military bandits politicians involved in the unprovoked attack and
subsequent destruction of Libya can be considered........WAR CRIMINALS.
Hopefully one day they will be stupid enough to attack Russia or China and be completely
destroyed for their stupidity.
OTBorder@CA , 1 hour ago
First of all, Gadhafi gave an unconditional surrender that was brokered by international
diplomatic channels over a month before our invasion. Obama & his minions ignored it.
We knew many pilots that flew "missions" over Libya during this war & were involved in
a massive bombing campaign. Don't forget the Wikileaks where France signed onto the war on
the condition they got a % of Libya's gold. My wish is that someday history will tell the
truth about the bastard Obama. Read the Lost Arab Spring by, Walid Phares to see all of the
other Countries Obama tried to overthrow & have radical Islamic Terrorists replace the
peaceful governments.
csc61 , 1 hour ago
The author gives these idiots far too much credit. People must come to the understanding
that presidents and politicians (on all sides) simply do as they're told. It is the hidden
hand, the international financiers, who are ruining the world. Politicians are mere pawns
... minions willing to sell their souls for a few short years of presumed power, only to
scurry off afterward to play the role of elder statesmen. Politicians are nothing more than
privileged degenerates who proved early in their political lives they could be easily
corrupted and compromised. It is not them who do the damage directly - these things would
happen no matter who's in charge. No, they're simply the ones pushed out front to sign
documents and take blame for the world's ruination ... a small price they are willing to
pay to feed their narcissistic appetites.
Mentaliusanything , 7 hours ago
I would caption that image as "Who is going first to the platform and rope... Biden
thinks he has won a Prize and is excited , The Kenyan says you first Bro (loser) and the
white Privileged woman is laughing as she says , You have nothing on Me... Bitches, I bury
mine deep and dead, I do not swing
Scipio Africanuz , 8 hours ago
Fair enough..
Now that we've completed stage 1 of the harvest, perhaps we ought boost the Republic of
Liberty, and hopefully, temper the anxious wrath of folks..
Libya was a catastrophic mistake, borne of hubris, vanity, intellectual rigidity,
vainglory, and confusion. Hubris on the part of some, Sarkozy comes to mind, vanity on the
part of some, Hillary Clinton comes to mind, confusion on the part of some, Obama comes to
mind, and Ideological rigidity on the part of some, Biden comes to mind, and vainglorious
pride on the part of some, the security establishment and their directors come to
mind..
Having cleared that, it's no use crying over spilt milk, what's necessary, if the
humility to acknowledge errors is available, is contributing rationally, and pernitently,
to fixing the errors, and not by the same thinking that led to the errors, but fresh
thinking that ought now understand that..
What's sown, is what's reaped, but MERCY it is, mitigates the harvests of depravity, via
the provision of energy to restitute, and make amends..
The caveat however, is that mercy is NEVER deployed without REPENTANCE and
RECALIBRATION,
which are the foundational pillars that make MERCY provide the energy to effect
RESTITUTION..
Having clarified that, it's pertinent to inform, that Providence is NOT interested, in
any way, shape, or form, in the damnation of anyone and why?
Well, which loving father is interested in the damnation of his children, no matter how
depraved?
Still, patience ought not be mistaken for coddling and why?
With one, patience, the intent is to provide time for change..
With the other, coddling, the gambit is the turning of blind eyes to depravity..
But seeing as God, the Almighty Father is CONSISTENTLY Just, we can conclude then, that
patience is the prerequisite for either Mercy or Damnation and how so?
Because if patience is deployed, and the depraved utilize it to change, then their
salvation is self directed..
And if not, utilized that is, then their damnation as well, is self obtained..
And thus is the Justice and Honor of Divine Providence satisfied..
It's that simple..
And on that note VP Biden, we'll no longer refer to you as that, but as Joseph..
That ought awaken in you the grave responsibility on your shoulders, like that of the
Biblical Joseph, whose father made for him, a "Coat of MANY colors.."
And if you be perceptive Joseph, you're now about to wear E Pluribus Unum (Coat of many
colors..), created as a singular garment (ONE NATION..), for a reason (the glorification of
Provident Divinity..
)
And the glorification?
That E Pluribus Unum (coat of many colors created as a singular garment..), ought
demonstrate to all who see it worn, the goodness, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, and
LOVE of the Provider of the Coat..
And considering Joseph, that in service of the Republic, you've not withheld the fruit
of your loins, it's appropriate then, that you ought now demonstrate that love for the
Republic, by putting it first, just as you'd put the fruits of your loins first, except
above Divine Providence, known to you, as God Almighty..
So then Joseph, as we begin the next stage of the harvest, remember your oath that "you
keep your promises..", you'll be judged by that oath..
And Joseph, "a promise is a debt..", it MUST be paid..
And to boost you energetically, here's Parton the Sweet Voiced Nightingale..
More than anybody, #UAE is committed to making sure
#Ankara
having won the #Tripoli battle in Jun never helps
it win the #Libya war. Idea is to contain
#Turkey
& turn its presence into a quagmire that bleeds it. By promising to help #Greece , the #French navy joins
that endeavor
France to bolster Mediterranean military presence. With Macron determined to assert French
leadership in the the Mediterranean, he will have to team up w RU to take on Turkey. This
means France will work w RU in Lebanon too. At cross purposes w the US. https://
reut.rs/31O3fjY Show this thread
It wasn't Steele's MI-6 dodgy dossier ... the dirt on candidate Donald Trump was initiated
by Republican billionaires Paul Singer e.a. to get Bush III elected president ... failed so
the clan supported Rubio ... at last resort the dossier was "sold" to Democrats and HRC.
Plunder, me hearties! Plunder! Yo Ho Ho and a barrel of oil!
"President Trump wants it known that -- despite his recent decision to pull back the U.S.
militarily back from previously Kurdish-held territory in Syria -- he plans on "
keeping the oil " in Syria and using American troops to do it.
If he follows through, he'll set a dangerous precedent -- and might commit a war crime.
Keeping Syria's oil could well constitute pillage -- theft during war -- which is banned in
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Laws and
Customs of War on Land, which states, "The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by
assault, is prohibited." The prohibition has a solid grounding in the laws of war and
international criminal justice , and the U.S. federal code , including as a
sanction for the illegal exploitation of natural resources such as oil from war zones.'
washpo
"Trump's more grave rationale is his conception of oil as remuneration for U.S. military
investment in the Middle East. In a speech Oct. 29, he said: "We want to keep the oil. $45
million a month? Keep the oil." It mirrors a sentiment he expressed to ABC News in 2011 about
Iraqi oil, saying
, "You win the war and you take it. You're not stealing anything. We're taking back $1.5
trillion to reimburse ourselves. " That argument goes well beyond the notion of securing the
oil -- it suggests trying to profit from it -- and therefore risks triggering responsibility
for pillage. Contrary to Trump's characterization, pillage is a form of stealing.
None of this is a new line of thinking for Trump: As a private citizen in 2011, in an
interview with the Wall Street Journal, commenting on U.S. military involvement in Libya,
he said : "I'm only interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the oil, I'm
not interested." Regarding Iraq, he
said : "I always heard that when we went into Iraq, we went in for the oil. I said, 'Ah,
that sounds smart.' " Indeed, he sounded disappointed during his televised announcement last
week of the killing of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, when he returned to the
subject of oil and
lamented : "I always used to say 'If they're going into Iraq, keep the oil.' They never
did. They never did."" washpo "Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said during the committee
hearing that SDF General Commander Mazloum Abdi informed him that a deal had been signed with
an American company to "modernize the oil fields in northeastern Syria", and asked Pompeo
whether the administration was supportive of it.
"We are," Pompeo responded during the hearing streamed live by PBS. "The deal took a little
longer ... than we had hoped, and now we're in implementation."" Reuters -------------- Barry
McCaffery has commented on Twitter that if we do this we are becoming pirates. As he says, the
oil belongs to Syria. I agree. pl
We're watching civil war unfold in the US and these pompous asses are busy trying to
sponge up Syrian oil, the trivial amount of stuff that is land-locked hundreds of miles from
any territory we control or is friendly to the US? God help us who is advising the tweeter in
chief? Can't Trump read an oil price chart any better than Fauci can read a Covid infection
rate? Did his son-in-law tell him what a great idea that would be? Are the warrior generals
who wouldn't defend this nation's capital against antifa, with the tacit consent at sedition
by Esper, in agreement with this line of strategic wisdom too? Maybe Senator Graham, who just
yesterday finally cornered Sally Yates into admitting under oath that the FISA warrant on
Carter Page was a fraud, is covering his bases in case the left's "resistance" to the
November election results in antifa marching into D.C. to bring Biden's secret choice as V.P.
into power? We have less reason to be in Syria than we do to still be defending Germany and
the rest of Europe from the USSR.
Well, with avarice as the guiding principle of the Trump administration's foreign policy,
at least there's no hypocrisy. Just pure, unadulterated greed. The honesty is almost
admirable. But I don't know how our Iranian policy fits into the avarice doctrine.
As far as Trump's pirate name goes, I do like the sound of "Bonespurs." I can see the flag
flying from the mainmast... a skeleton foot of or on a field of sable.
As an army of occupation the US military could requisition the oil, but according to the
Hague Regulations it can do so only for its own needs. It can not do so for the fun and
profits of the foreign state that sent that army in.
If you really, really, really squint hard then perhaps there is wriggle room under Article
55 i.e. Trump can claim that he is the usufructuary of the territory, and therefore can
benefit from the pumping.
But arguing that would be a hopeless brief.
So, yeah, Trump as a medieval warlord. Perhaps he'll also reintroduce the practice of
prima nocta.
I would accept the idea of Trump's inability to distinguish between government and
business, but people like Jeffries and the Pomp are neocon ideologues through and through.
Nothing more.
I put these comments on the open thread about the same time b started this one
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1289724554982629377
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to
US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Trump a few months back "We've kept the oil". Well, he hasn't had a problem hanging onto
it and getting an American company involved.
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil
to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 2 2020 14:35 utc | 2
Very likely the Kurds were under pressure from Trump, and the act wasn't voluntary. It's
not even the Kurds' oil to sign a deal on (except one well). We'll see whether the
operation actually succeeds. At the moment, everybody is waiting to see whether Trump is
re-elected in November. Signing a piece of paper now is of no significance.
The "no-fly zone" issue is covered in a second video suggested when this one almost
ends...It is also told that Obama opposed at first the destruction of Lybia, along with the
important participation of some NATO superpowers on basis of geopolitical interests and, of
course, looting of always...It was a coalition of the willing with assorted goals...althoughm
ainly benefitted the US in its cursade on the ME...
All these wars have happened to destroy kinda powerful nations ( competing
economic/military powers...), like Lybia in Africa and Yugoslavia in Europe on behalf of
others´hegemony...
Great video that everyone should see (especially clueless Americans) but it should've
included Obama's illegally turning a "no fly" Zone into a bombing campaign.
The UN had only authorized a "no fly" zone and Obama never sought authorization from
Congress for war.
Okay, I'll bite, Jackrabbit - sorry if I haven't followed your line of thinking on CIA and
Hillary ...wanting to elect Trump??? That really doesn't make sense to me. That would mean
everything about the really outrageous campaign against Trump's presidency has been
orchestrated so we chumps wouldn't guess they really were secretly rejoicing?
Sorry, I just don't buy it. But of course, I could be wrong. Who knows what dark deeds are
being secretly devised behind all these curtains of lies? (A good reason to suppose there is
a God who sees and who will someday reveal to us mortals what has really been going on. I
can't wait to find out.)
A couple of relevant section from the NPR which I think Putin was replying to.
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF
From page 21...
"The United States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in extreme
circumstances
to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners. Extreme
circumstances
could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks. Significant non-nuclear strategic
attacks
include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population
or
infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or
warning
and attack assessment capabilities.
The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear
weapons
states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation
obligations.
Given the potential of significant non-nuclear strategic attacks, the United States reserves
the right
to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and
proliferation
of non-nuclear strategic attack technologies and U.S. capabilities to counter that
threat."
And page 34...
"Our deterrence strategy is designed to ensure that the Iranian leadership understands
that
any non-nuclear strategic attack against the United States, allies, and partners would be
defeated, and that the cost would outweigh any benefits. There is no plausible scenario
in
which Iran may anticipate benefit from launching a strategic attack. Consequently, U.S
deterrence strategy includes the capabilities necessary to defeat Iranian non-nuclear,
strategic capabilities, including the U.S. defensive and offensive systems capable of
precluding or degrading Tehran's missile threats. The United States will continue to
strengthen these capabilities as necessary to stay ahead of Iranian threats as they grow.
Doing so will enhance U.S. security and that of our regional allies and partners."
The page 34 section states plainly that US is willing to use nuclear weapons against
Iran's non nuclear capabilities.
I should have highlighted this in my previous post.
The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear
weapons
states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation
obligations.
After the drone shoot-down last week, Israel and USA sought to convince Russia to allow a
strike against Iran. The Russians rebuffed this request as well as the depiction of Iran as a
terrorist state
"In the context of the statements made by our partners with regard to a major regional
power, namely Iran, I would like to say the following: Iran has always been and remains
our ally and partner , with which we are consistently developing relations both on
bilateral basis and within multilateral formats,"
...Iran launching very clever non-silo dug down ballistic missiles. Anyone can copy the
idea in earth or sand, it looks relatively simple and perhaps genius. It should only require
minimal additions similar to when missiles are "containerized"/vertical on ships.
· "W93/MK7 Navy Warhead -- Developing Modern Capabilities to Address Current and
Future Threats" - Pentagon, Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA), unclassified 5-page white paper, May 2020 is still not "leaked". Seems a dud: reading
between the lines not written no one was convinced and instead complained about anyone saying
there's any problems (how "exceptional").
"Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an
asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated
electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to
front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio
communications.
Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a
response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to
determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive
strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces'
electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. The losses were as follows: one aircraft
carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real
conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the
cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada
of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized
on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected."
Iranians are not part of the rules based order it seems - not that the bad guys in the war
game was played by Iranians.
In the 2002 war game, the US was defeated in 2 days - lost a massive part of its fleet or
some such. So they stopped the game and changed the rules. I think that's when Van Riper quit
the game in disgust, and of course ultimately went public. But even with the rules changed,
the US still lost.
The point about these exercises is that they are real endeavors to create a playbook that
will result in victory. Millennium cost about $200 million to stage, and even for the
Pentagon that was war-fighting money spent to try to get somewhere. The next point even more
crucial is that in EVERY exercise the Pentagon has undertaken since this game, the US is
ALWAYS beaten by Iran.
This is the point I frequently try to hammer home here - the Pentagon has no map
whatsoever that leads to victory in warfare against Iran. Any warfare will always result in
defeat for the US - and we know how unpalatable a public defeat would be for the whole MIC
stream of income. The fundamentals are stacked against the US. It's very similar to Israel's
position right now against Hezbollah. For both the US and Israel, neither one can move
forward along the path it wants to go because its foe simply cannot be beaten by any
stratagem it can devise.
Sharmine Narwani talked about this extensively in her interview with Ross Ashcroft last
year on Renegade, Inc. It's an excellent interview. She's expert on the geopolitics of the ME
and laid out many of the fundamentals that create and support Iran's unwavering position in
this theater and in the great game:
I keep this episode bookmarked largely to share it here from time to time. You will both
enjoy the interview. The takeaway is that the US can bluster all it wants, but it dare not
cross a red line with Iran - such as it already has, for example, with Soleimani's murder,
and for which it has not yet suffered its full punishment, which is complete banishment from
the ME (and which I am convinced Iran will ultimately achieve).
~~
When your generals tell you constantly, daily, that you can't go into battle in a certain
theater, you are free to bluster all you want. In fact, it's all you have left, and you pour
all your feeble energy into it. Thus, the US.
Peter AU1 50 & 55 Bemildred & Grieved 70
RE: Millenium Challenge 2002
And yet, I keep pointing out that, that was 18 long years ago, when Iran did NOT have the
following:
Terminal guidance for it's ballistics
Armed drone technology
Satellite to map out the battlefield
Proximity to Israel (two countries sat between Iran and Israel)
Electronic surveillance and response, like spoofing a drone to land in Iran.
S300 and home built variations
Cyber
Experience watching coalition forces fighting in ME
Etc, etc,
US could not attack Iran conventionally but with Trump's earlier fixation on nuclear
weapons I think he was going to give that a try. Putin must have thought so to as he very
publicly laid Russia's nuclear umbrella over Iran and maintained the status quo.
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 1 2020 9:03 utc | 88 US could not attack Iran
conventionally
The US is perfectly capable of *attacking* Iran conventionally. The only thing to question
is whether the US can *defeat* Iran in the sense that Iran "surrenders" officially to the US.
*That* is in my view impossible short of the US actually killing thirty million Iranians by
nuking Iran.
Which in turn I believe even Trump would not do. He really would get Pentagon pushback on
that, as well as from every US ally and the UNSC, because no one wants to get the
geopolitical hear from being the first country to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear
country (this isn't WWII any more, before anyone brings up Hiroshima.)
As for Putin declaring Iran an ally, that does *not* mean that Putin would risk a nuclear
confrontation with the US over Iran. Not going to happen - even if the US nuked Tehran.
Putin's charge is to take care of Russian interests - and having Iran as an "ally and
partner" does qualify as an "interest". But it is *not* an *overriding* interest. Putin would
not be authorized by the Russian people to risk their country being nuked over a bunch of
Persians and if he did, they'd kick his butt out at the next election - and rightly so.
Current Russian military doctrine (discussed
here specifies the following:
The section on use begins by repeating the formulation in the last two Russian military
doctrines (translation from the Russian Embassy in the U.K.): "The Russian Federation shall
reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types
of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of
aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the
very existence of the state is in jeopardy." Like the doctrines, Foundations underlines
that the president of the Russian Federation makes any decision to use nuclear weapons.
However, unlike the doctrines, it then, in paragraph 19, outlines four conditions that
could allow for (not require) nuclear use:
credible information that Russia is under ballistic missile attack (the missiles don't
have to be nuclear -- this isn't specified -- but in many cases, it's hard to tell before
they land);
the use of nuclear or other WMD by an adversary against Russian territory or that of its
allies;
adversary actions against Russian critical government or military infrastructure that could
undermine Russia's capacity for nuclear retaliation (so, for example, a cyber attack on
Russia's command and control -- or perhaps one that targets Russian leadership could also
qualify); and, finally,
conventional aggression against Russia that threatens the very existence of the state.
The primary requirement is the use of nukes or "WMDs" against Russia, or conventional
weapons where their use is an "existential threat", i.e., Russia is about to be defeated on a
conventional battlefield.
the phrase "and/or its allies" almost certainly does *not* include Iran. There are two
"alliances" to which Russia is a party, according to Wikipedia:
1) Collective Security Treaty Organization: Military alliance with 6 former Soviet republics:
Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan.
2) Union State: an alliance between Russia and Belarus (also already covered by 1).
Russia and Iran do not have any formal military or mutual-defense alliance agreements.
Russia and Iran are "allied" only with regard to Syria and Islamic terrorism in general.
Russia is willing to sell Iran arms, obviously. Equally obviously, that does not indicate a
willingness to risk nuclear war.
Putin made the following statement in June of 2019:
After talks Friday with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the sidelines of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization summit in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, Putin said that
"relations between Russia and Iran are multifaceted, multilateral" and that "this concerns
the economy, this concerns the issues of stability in the region, our joint efforts to
combat terrorism, including in Syria."
Nothing in that statement indicates a willingness to use Russia's nuclear arsenal to
threaten the US to prevent a US attack on Iran.
It is of course *possible* that some in the Pentagon, the Deep State, and/or Congress, may
interpret that to be the case. But I think the primary restraint on any President would be
the heat for a first use of nukes on a non-nuclear country - even if the alleged "reason" was
that Iran was developing nukes.
Even severe damage to US Navy assets in the region would not be sufficient to justify the use
of nukes against Iran, in particular because the only viable target for nukes would Tehran or
some other major Iranian city.
It is just possible that a tactical nuke would be used against a heavily buried facility
involved in nuclear weapons development (or more precisely, alleged to be so - because Iran
won't be developing nukes regardless of any US attack.) But even that would likely produce
more heat than the US would want - and if it was done, it would be done as covertly as
possible and then denied by the US. And even in that case, Russia would not threaten a
nuclear response over that.
Of course, if the US leadership were to become even more unhinged than Trump, or say, the
Russian leadership after Putin were to become more hawkish, then all bets are off. But under
current conditions, it's not going to happen.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957
"In this connection, I would like to note the following. We are greatly concerned by certain
provisions of the revised nuclear posture review, which expand the opportunities for reducing
and reduce the threshold for the use of nuclear arms. Behind closed doors, one may say
anything to calm down anyone, but we read what is written. And what is written is that this
strategy can be put into action in response to conventional arms attacks and even to a
cyber-threat.
I should note that our military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear
weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass
destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the
use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state. This all is very
clear and specific.
As such, I see it is my duty to announce the following. Any use of nuclear weapons against
Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a
nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant
consequences."
Patrushev from my link above.
"In the context of the statements made by our partners with regard to a major regional power,
namely Iran, I would like to say the following: Iran has always been and remains our ally and
partner, with which we are consistently developing relations both on bilateral basis and
within multilateral formats"
Patrushev went to the meeting as a presidential envoy. After Putin's 2018 speech, I wondered
who Russia considered an ally as I had not seen Russia name any. I tend to think Patrushev
had reason to publicly name Iran as an ally at that presser. My guess is Israel and US were
trying to get Russia to stand aside while they attacked Iran.
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 1 2020 10:52 utc | 95 I tend to think Patrushev had reason to
publicly name Iran as an ally at that presser. My guess is Israel and US were trying to get
Russia to stand aside while they attacked Iran.
Nonetheless, the two statements do not constitute an official declaration that Iran is an
ally in the sense of being under the Russian nuclear umbrella, as the countries in the list I
quoted from Wikipedia are. The Collective Security Treaty Organization "charter reaffirmed
the desire of all participating states to abstain from the use or threat of force.
Signatories would not be able to join other military alliances or other groups of states,[3]
while aggression against one signatory would be perceived as an aggression against all."
That's a military alliance which specifically declares those countries as "allies" in the
military sense and specifically states that an attack on any of them is an attack on all of
them.
Putin nor anyone else in Russia has specifically stated that Iran is an ally in those same
terms. Putin's reference to Iran as an ally applied to economic matters and the security of
Syria.
There is an article at Stratfor which I cannot access, but the tagline says: "Nikolai
Bordyuzha, secretary-general of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), said Feb.
25 [2020] that Moscow's nuclear umbrella has been extended to other CSTO member countries..."
In other words, the nuclear umbrella didn't even cover the former Soviet Union countries
until this year, apparently. From another article I found, Russia extended the umbrella to
Belarus in 2000. Another article I found says this:
Finally, Russia has created its own military alliance through the Collective Security
Treaty (1992) or "Tashkent treaty". In 2002, the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO) was created, with a view to parallel NATO. As of June 2009, the organization
included Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, which are
implicitly covered by a Russian nuclear guarantee. Even though Russian officials refer
sometimes to all Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) countries being protected by Moscow's nuclear forces, it is
reasonable to assume that only CSTO countries are effectively under the Russian nuclear
umbrella.
So I simply don't see any reference anywhere to Russia explicitly extending its nuclear
umbrella outside of the former Soviet Bloc countries. Again, all of the references made by
Russians - Putin or otherwise - to Iran as an "ally" do not reference a military dimension.
Of course, it's always *possible* that Putin or some future Russian leader *would* extend
that umbrella to Iran, depending on future circumstances. But it seems highly unlikely.
I repeat: There is no chance that Russia will go to nuclear war over Iran. Or even
conventional war against US military assets engaged in an attack on Iran because that would
risk escalation to a nuclear level. The most Russia will do is supply arms and intelligence
to Iran.
For months the US has been in a full court diplomatic press on fellow UN Security Council
members in an attempt to ensure that a UN arms embargo against Iran does not expire.
The embargo on selling conventional weapons to Iran is set to end October 18, and is
ironically enough part of the 2015 nuclear deal brokered under Obama, which the Trump
administration in May 2018 pulled out of.
But now Pompeo vows
the US will "take necessary action" -- no doubt meaning more sanctions at the very least,
and likely military action at worst. He told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week
that "in the near future... we hope will be met with approval from other members of the
P5."
"In the event it's not, we're going to take the action necessary to ensure that this arms
embargo does not expire," he said.
"We have the capacity to execute snapback and we're going to use it in a way that protects
and defends America," Pompeo told the committee further.
Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continued
to call on the world to accept extending the UN arms embargo against Iran. The embargo is
scheduled to expire on October 18.
But it's clear at this point that the UN is not intent on extending the embargo . Russia for
one has promised as much. Both Russia and China also have recent weapons deals in the works
with the Islamic Republic.
LibertarianMenace , 55 minutes ago
"protects and defends America"
Nothing is farther from the truth, fat man. We know (((who))) it is we're
"protecting".
bumboo , 37 minutes ago
Is this fat guy being blackmailed to saying stupid things all the time
monty42 , 35 minutes ago
He works for the Council on Foreign Relations who have been bankrupting the States with
perpetual war since they fomented WW2.
LibertarianMenace , 30 minutes ago
Yes, him and the rest of the USG. When you can assassinate a U.S. President in broad
daylight and get away with it, you can get away with more extravagant illusions, like 09/11,
or if people are finally catching on, throw in just a smidgen of reality like CV-19. Sky is
the limit.
This is Trump's redeeming value: he's showing all, including the densest among us
(((who))) it is that runs the country. Whether he does it intentionally or not, as in
kowtowing to (((them))), is ultimately irrelevant. (((They))) have to be a bit uncomfortable
from the unaccustomed exposure. The censoring just proves it.
Tag 'em And Bag 'em , 36 minutes ago
This pneumatic bull frog is a deep state sock puppet with a Zionist hand way up his
***.
When his lips move, Satanyahoo's voice comes out
This has zero to do with the interests of real Americans.
**building 7 didn't kill itself**
Tag 'em And Bag 'em , 23 minutes ago
TRUMP: "Larry Silverstein is a great guy, he's a good guy, he's a friend of mine."
The reason that the US government are trying to get Iran is because Epstein/Mossad has
blackmailed them all into doing their bidding.
Why don't you cover that in the news, huh?
El Chapo Read , 31 minutes ago
"Necessary Action" = Call Israel and ask what they want him to do.
jaser , 43 minutes ago
Protect America? Protect corrupt Netanyahu more like it. Your nation is about to implode
and you just cut off the $600 welfare payment to your citizens hey but let's ban TikTok and
protect America from Iran.
malMono , 39 minutes ago
This why Biden might win...idiots like pompeo are a turnoff.
Grouchy-Bear , 34 minutes ago
Sometimes it looks like Pompeo is actually in charge. Okay, most of the time he is in
charge. Why go through the election process at all? Pompeo is running the country and was
never elected...
malMono , 39 minutes ago
This why Biden might win...idiots like pompeo are a turnoff.
Grouchy-Bear , 34 minutes ago
Sometimes it looks like Pompeo is actually in charge. Okay, most of the time he is in
charge. Why go through the election process at all? Pompeo is running the country and was
never elected...
rwe2late , 43 minutes ago
Embargo Iran to make them as desperate as possible.
Then accuse them of being "aggressive" while one attacks and bombs Iran's near neighbors
(Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen).
Sounds like a plan of aggressive war if done by any but an "exceptional" nation.
If Russia and China want to trade with Iran, how in the world is it the US Government's
right to tell them not to? If we want to put sanctions on Iran, go for it. But at this point,
the dollar is collapsing as world reserve currency. Iran should well be able to buy anything
they need, from China/Russia and the rest of the world which doesn't respect US sanctions, or
so I would think.
My point - there's really getting nothing that the US even can do about Iran. So
maybe...we should just stop and give it a rest.
Einstein101 , 13 minutes ago
Iran should well be able to buy anything they need, from China/Russia
Fact is Russia and China sell almost nothing to Iran, fearing US sanctions.
Cassandra.Hermes , 2 minutes ago
Don't forget Turkey, Azerbaijan and Europe! Turkish stream is not only bypassing Ukrain
but it is connected to Azeri pipeline that is 10km from Iranians border.
monty42 , 15 minutes ago
"Obviously the Iranian army has a bunch of non thinkers..."
Hypocrisy much? The US regime employs paid mercenaries who swore to uphold and defend the
Constitution, yet lie and unthinkingly "just follow orders" and believe that absolves them of
their oathbreaking and actions.
"Dude, I am FREE. I have firearms that are deadly." Heh, only a very limited arsenal
permitted by the Central Committee in D.C., to maintain firepower supremacy in the empire's
favor. Your firearms may be deadly, but the empire mercenary can take you out without you
ever seeing their face.
Clearly having firearms and ammo alone do not prevent tyranny, the States under the D.C.
regime prove that.
vipervenom , 17 minutes ago
pompass the fat boy coward sending our troops to die while he hides behind his own extra
large rear end.
Turkey is currently involved in quite a few international military conflicts -- both against
its own neighbors such as Greece, Armenia, Iraq, Syria and Cyprus, and against other nations
such as Libya and Yemen. These actions by Turkey suggest that Turkey's foreign policy is
increasingly destabilizing not only several nations, but the region as well.
In addition, the Erdogan regime has been militarily targeting Syria and Iraq, sending its
Syrian mercenaries to Libya to seize Libyan oil and continuing, as usual, to bully Greece.
Turkey's regime is also now provoking ongoing violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_1565758762 NOW PLAYING
Erdogan leads first Muslim prayer after Hagia Sophia mosque reconversion
Istanbul's Hagia Sophia reconversion to a mosque, 'provocation to civilised world', Greece
says
Turkish top court revokes Hagia Sophia's museum status, 'tourists should still be allowed
in'
Erdogan: Interference over Hagia Sophia 'direct attack on our sovereignty'
Libya's GNA says Egypt's warning on Sirte offensive a 'declaration of war'
Erdogan says 'agreements' reached with Trump on Libya
What Turkish Election Results Mean for the Lira
Erdogan Sparks Democracy Concerns in Push for Istanbul Vote Rerun
Since July 12, Azerbaijan has launched a series of cross-border attacks against Armenia's
northern Tavush region in skirmishes that have resulted
in the deaths of at least four Armenian soldiers and 12 Azerbaijani ones. After Azerbaijan
threatened to launch missile attacks on Armenia's Metsamor nuclear plant on July 16, Turkey
offered military assistance to Azerbaijan.
"Our armed unmanned aerial vehicles, ammunition and missiles with our experience, technology
and capabilities are at Azerbaijan's service,"
said İsmail Demir, the head of Presidency of Defense Industries, an affiliate of the
Turkish Presidency.
One of Turkey's main targets also seems to be Greece. The Turkish military is targeting
Greek territorial waters yet again. The Greek newspaper Kathimerini
reported :
"There have been concerns over a possible Turkish intervention in the East Med in a bid to
prevent an agreement on the delineation of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between Greece
and Egypt which is currently being discussed between officials of the two countries."
Turkey's choice of names for its gas exploration ships are also a giveaway. The name of the
main ship that Turkey is using for seismic "surveys" of the Greek continental shelf is
Oruç Reis , (1474-1518), an admiral of the Ottoman Empire who often raided the
coasts of Italy and the islands of the Mediterranean that were still controlled by Christian
powers. Other exploration and drilling vessels Turkey uses or is planning to use in Greece's
territorial waters are named after Ottoman sultans who targeted Cyprus and Greece in bloody
military invasions. These include the drilling ship
Fatih "the conqueror" or Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, who invaded Constantinople in 1453; the
drilling ship
Yavuz , "the resolute", or Sultan Selim I, who headed the Ottoman Empire during the
invasion of Cyprus in 1571; and
Kanuni , "the lawgiver" or Sultan Suleiman, who invaded parts of eastern Europe as well as
the Greek island of Rhodes.
Turkey's move in the Eastern Mediterranean came in early July, shortly after the country had
turned Hagia Sophia, once the world's greatest Greek Cathedral, into a mosque. Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan then
linked Hagia Sophia's conversion to a pledge to "liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque" in
Jerusalem.
On July 21, the tensions arose again following Turkey's announcement that it plans to
conduct seismic research in parts of the Greek continental shelf in an area of sea between
Cyprus and Crete in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean.
"Turkey's plan is seen in Athens as a dangerous escalation in the Eastern Mediterranean,
prompting Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis to warn that European Union sanctions could follow
if Ankara continues to challenge Greek sovereignty," Kathimerini
reported on July 21.
Here is a short list of other countries where Turkey is also militarily involved:
In Libya , Turkey has been increasingly involved in the country's civil war. Associated
Press reported on July 18:
"Turkey sent between 3,500 and 3,800 paid Syrian fighters to Libya over the first three
months of the year, the U.S. Defense Department's inspector general concluded in a new
report, its first to detail Turkish deployments that helped change the course of Libya's
war.
"The report comes as the conflict in oil-rich Libya has escalated into a regional proxy
war fueled by foreign powers pouring weapons and mercenaries into the country."
Libya has been in turmoil since 2011, when an armed revolt during the "Arab Spring" led to
the ouster and murder of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Political power in the country, the current
population of which is around 6.5 million, has been split
between two rival governments. The UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), has been led
by Prime Minister Fayez al Sarraj. Its rival, the Libyan National Army (LNA), has been led by
Libyan military officer, Khalifa Haftar.
Backed by Turkey, the GNA
said on July 18 that it would recapture Sirte, a gateway to Libya's main oil terminals, as
well as an LNA airbase at Jufra.
Egypt, which backs the LNA,
announced , however, that if the GNA and Turkish forces tried to seize Sirte, it would send
troops into Libya. On July 20, the Egyptian parliament
gave approval to a possible deployment of troops beyond its borders "to defend Egyptian
national security against criminal armed militias and foreign terrorist elements."
Yemen is another country on which Turkey has apparently set its sights. In a recent video ,
Turkey-backed Syrian mercenaries fighting on behalf of the GNA in Libya, and aided by local
Islamist groups, are seen saying, "We are just getting started. The target is going to be
Gaza." They also state that they want to take on Egyptian President Sisi and to go to
Yemen.
"Turkey's growing presence in Yemen," The Arab Weekly reported
on May 9, "especially in the restive southern region, is fuelling concern across the region
over security in the Gulf of Aden and the Bab al-Mandeb.
"These concerns are further heightened by reports indicating that Turkey's agenda in Yemen
is being financed and supported by Qatar via some Yemeni political and tribal figures
affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In Syria , Turkey-backed jihadists continue occupying the northern parts of the country. On
July 21, Erdogan
announced that Turkey's military presence in Syria would continue. "Nowadays they are
holding an election, a so-called election," Erdogan said of a parliamentary election on July 19
in Syria's government-controlled regions, after nearly a decade of civil war. "Until the Syrian
people are free, peaceful and safe, we will remain in this country."
Additionally, Turkey's incursion into the Syrian city of Afrin, created a particularly grim
situation for the local Yazidi population:
"As a result of the Turkish incursion to Afrin," the Yazda organization
reported on May 29, "thousands of Yazidis have fled from 22 villages they inhabited prior
to the conflict into other parts of Syria, or have migrated to Lebanon, Europe, or the
Kurdistan Region of Iraq... "
"Due to their religious identity, Yazidis in Afrin are suffering from targeted harassment
and persecution by Turkish-backed militant groups. Crimes committed against Yazidis include
forced conversion to Islam, rape of women and girls, humiliation and torture, arbitrary
incarceration, and forced displacement. The United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in its 2020 annual report confirmed that Yazidis and Christians
face persecution and marginalization in Afrin.
"Additionally, nearly 80 percent of Yazidi religious sites in Syria have been looted,
desecrated, or destroyed, and Yazidi cemeteries have been defiled and bulldozed."
In Iraq , Turkey has been carrying out military operations for years. The last one was
started in mid-June. Turkey's Defense Ministry
announced on June 17 that the country had "launched a military operation against the PKK"
(Kurdistan Workers' Party) in northern Iraq after carrying out a series of airstrikes. Turkey
has named its assaults "Operation Claw-Eagle" and "Operation Claw-Tiger".
The Yazidi, Assyrian
Christian and Kurdish
civilians have been terrorized by the bombings. At least five civilians have been killed in
the air raids, according to
media reports . Human Rights Watch has also issued a
report , noting that a Turkish airstrike in Iraq "disregards civilian loss."
Given Turkey's military aggression in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Armenia, among others, and its
continued occupation of northern Cyprus, further aggression, especially against Greece, would
not be unrealistic. Turkey's desire to invade Greece is not exactly a secret. Since at least
2018, both the Turkish government and opposition parties have openly been calling
for capturing the Greek islands in the Aegean, which they falsely claim belong to
Turkey.
If such an attack took place, would the West abandon Greece?
Gaius Konstantine , 10 hours ago
If such an attack took place, it will get real messy, real fast. The Turkish military is
only partially adept at fighting irregular forces that lack heavy weaponry while Turkey has
absolute control of the sky. Even then, the recent performance of Turkish forces has been
lacklustre for "the 2nd largest Army in NATO".
Turkey should understand that a fight with Greece will mean that the advantages she
enjoyed in her recent adventures will not be there. Nor should Turkey look to the past and
expect an easy victory, the Greek Army will not be marching deep into Anatolia this time,
(which was the wrong type of war for Greece).
So what happens if they actually take it to war?
The larger Greek islands are well defended, they won't be taken, but defending the smaller
ones is hard and Turkey will probably grab some of those. The Greeks, who have absolute
control and dominance in the Aegean will do several things. Turkish naval and air bases along
the Aegean coastline will be attacked as will the bosphorus bridges, (those bridges WILL go
down). The Greek army, which is positioned well, will blitz into eastern Thrace and stop
outside Istanbul where they will dig in and shell the city, thereby causing the civilians to
flee and clogging up the tunnels to restrict military re-enforcement.
That's Greece acting alone, a position will be achieved where any captured islands will be
traded for eastern Thrace. Should the French intervene, (even if it's just air and naval
forces), it gets a lot more interesting.
The mighty Turkish fleet was just met by the entire Greek navy in the latest stand-off, it
was enough to cause Turkey to reconsider her options. There will be no Ottoman empire 2.0
OliverAnd , 9 hours ago
The Greeks need their navy for surgically precise attacks against Turkey's navy. Every
island, especially the large ones are unsinkable aircraft carriers. No one has mentioned in
any article that Turkey's navy is functioning with less than minimum required personnel. No
one has mentioned that their air force is flying with Pakistani pilots. The only way Turks
will land on Greek uninhabited islands is only if they are ship wrecked and that for a very
very short period of time. Turkey's population is composed of 25% Kurds... that will also be
very interesting to see once they awaken from their hibernation and realize their great and
holy goal of Kurdistan. Egypt will not waste the opportunity to join in to devastate whatever
Turkish navy remains. Serbian patriots will not allow the opportunity to go to waste and will
attack Kosovo and indirectly Albania composed primarily of Turkish descendants... realize the
coverage lately of how the US did wrong for supporting these degenerate Muslim
Albanians.
I have no doubt Greeks will make it to Aghia Sophia but will not pass Bosporus. The result
will be a Treaty that is a hybrid of the Treaty of Lausanne and the Treaty of Sevron. If the
Albanians decide to support the Turks by attacking Greeks in the North and in Northern
Epeirus they should expect annexation of Northern Epeirus to Greece. Erdogan bases his
bullying on Trump's incompetences and false friendship. This is why America is non existent
in any of these regions. If Trump wins the election it will be a long war and very
destabilized for the region. If Trump loses the war will be much much quicker. The outcome
will remain the same. The Russians will not allow Turkey to dictate in the area. Israel will
not allow Turkey to dictate in the area. Egypt will not allow Turkey to dictate in the area.
Not even European Union. UK is the questionable.
The West has Turkey's back otherwise the Turkish currency the Turkish Lira would have
collapsed by now under attacks from the City of London Freemasonic Talmudic bankers.
Remember what happened to the Russian Rouble when Russia annexed Crimea?
The Fed and the ECB in cahoots with the usual Talmudic interests, are supporting the
Turkish Lira and propping up the Erdogan regime.
There is NO OTHER explanation.
The Turks have NO foreign currency reserves, no net positive euro nor dollar reserves.
Their tourism industry and main hard currency generator has COLLAPSED (hotels are 95 percent
empty). The Turkish central bank has resorted to STEALING Turkish citizens'
dollar-denominated bank accounts via raising Turkish Banks' foreign currency reserve
requirements which the Turkish central bank SPENDS upon receipt to buy TLs and prop up the
Turkish Lira.
This is utter MADNESS and FRAUD and LARCENY.
London-based currency traders would be all over the Turkish Lira and/or Turkish bonds and
stocks by now UNLESS they had been instructed by the Fed and the ECB or the Talmudic bankers
that own and control both, to lay off the Turkish Lira.
Despite the noise on TV or the press,
BY DEFINITION,
Erdogan and the Turks are only doing the bidding of the TRIBE hence Erdogan has the
blessing and the protection of the people ZH censors the name.
BUT
You know how those parasites treat their host and what the inevitable outcome is,
right?
Indeed,
Erdogan and the Turks are being set up to be thrown under the proverbial bus at the
appropriate time.
The Neo-Ottoman Sultan has inadvertently set up his (ill begotten) country for eventual
destruction and partition. The Kurds will get a piece of it. Who knows, maybe even the
Armenians will be able to recover some bits of their ancient homeland.
Greeks in Constantinople? Nothing is impossible thanks to the hubris and chutzpah of
Erdogan who is purported to have "Amish" blood himself.
Know thyself , 5 hours ago
Good for the UK that they have left the EU.
Apart from the Greeks, who would be fighting for their lives and homeland, the only EU
forces capable of acting are the French. German does not have an operative army or navy;
Italy, Spain and Portugal have neglected their armed forces for many years, and the Baltic
and Eastern Nations are unlikely to want to get involved. The Netherlands have very good
forces but not many of them.
MPJones , 7 hours ago
We can live in hope. Erdogan certainly seems to need external enemies to hold the country
together. Let us also hope that Erdogan's adventurism finally wakes up Europe to the reality
of the ongoing Muslim invasion so that the necessary Muslim repatriation can get going
without the bloodshed which Islam's current strategy in Europe will otherwise inevitably lead
to.
Know thyself , 5 hours ago
The Turkish army is a conscript army. They will need to be whipped up with religious
fervour to perform. Otherwise they will look after their own skins.
But remember that the Turks put up a good defence in the Dardanelles in the First World
War.
HorseBuggy , 9 hours ago
What do you expect? He killed Russian fighter pilots and he survived, this empowers
terrorists like him. Those pilots were the only ones at that time fighting ISIS. May they
RIP.
Max.Power , 9 hours ago
Turkey is in a "proud" group of failed empires surrounded by nations they severely abused
less than 100 years ago.
Other two are Germany and Japan. Any military aggression from their side will be met with
rage by a coalition of nations.
US position will be irrelevant at this point, because local historical grievances will
overweight anything else.
monty42 , 10 hours ago
"Libya has been in turmoil since 2011, when an armed revolt during the "Arab Spring" led
to the ouster and murder of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Political power in the country..."
Kinda gave yourself away there. The coordinated assault on Libya by the US, Britain,
France, and their Al-CiA-da allies on the ground resulted in the torture, sodomizing, and
murder of Gaddafi, as well as his son and grandchildren killed in bombings by the US.
Also, let's not forget that Turkey is still in NATO, and their actions in Syria were
alongside the US regime and terrorist proxies labeled "moderate rebels". The same terrorists
originally used in Libya, then shipped to destroy Syria, now flown back to Libya. The attempt
to paint all of those things as Turkey's actions alone is not honest.
When Turkey isn't in NATO anymore, let me know.
TheZeitgeist , 10 hours ago
Don't forget that Hiftar guy Turks are fighting in Libya was a CIA toadie living in
Virginia for a decade before they gave him his "chance" to among other things become a client
of the Russians apparently. Flustercluck of the 1st order everywhere one looks.
monty42 , 10 hours ago
Then they put on this whole production where it's the CIA guy or the terrorist puppet
regime they installed, so that the rulers win regardless of the outcome. The victims are
those caught up in their sick game.
GalustGulbenkyan , 9 hours ago
Turkish population has been recently getting ****** due to the economic contractions and
devaluation of the Lira. Once Turkey starts fighting against a real army the Turks will
realize that they are going to be ****** by larger dildos. In 1990's they sent thousands of
volunteers to Nagorno Karabagh to fight against irregular Armenian forces and we know how
that ended for them. Greeks and Egyptians are not the Kurds. Erdogan is a lot of hot air and
empty threats. You can't win wars with Modern drones which even Armenians have learned how to
jam and shoot down with old 1970's soviet tech.
Guentzburgh , 5 hours ago
Greece should be aligned with Russia, EU and USA are a bad choice that Greece will
regret.
Greece needs to pivot towards Russia which will open huge opportunities for both
countries
KoalaWalla , 6 hours ago
Greeks are bitter and prideful - they would not only defend themselves if attacked but
would counter attack to reclaim land they've lost. But, I don't know that Erdogan is clever
enough to realize this.
60s Man , 9 hours ago
Turkey is America's Mini Me.
currency , 3 hours ago
Erdogan is in Trouble at home declining economy and his radical conservative/Thug type
policies. Turks are moving away from him except the hard core radicals and conservatives. He
and his family are Corrupt - they rule with threats and use of THUGS. Sense his constant wars
may be over stretched Time for a Turkish Spring.
Time for US, Nato and etc. to say goodbye to this THUG
OrazioGentile , 7 hours ago
Turkey seems to be on a warpath to imploding from within. Erdogan looks like a desperate
despot with a failing economy, failing political clout, and failing modernization of his
Country. Like any despot, he has to rally the troops or he will literally be a dead man
walking.
HorseBuggy , 9 hours ago
The world fears loud obnoxious tyrants and Erdogan is the loudest tyrant since Hitler.
Remember how countries pandered to Hitler early on? Same thing is happening with Erdogan.
This terrorist will do a lot more damage than he has already before the world wakes
up.
By the time Hitler was done, 70 million people were dead, what will Erdogan cause?
OliverAnd , 9 hours ago
Turkey is not Germany. Not by far. Erdogan may be a bigger lunatic than Hitler, but Turkey
is not Germany of the 30's. Without military equipment/parts from Germany, Italy, Spain,
France, USA, and UK he cannot even build a nail. Economies are very integrated; he will be
disposed of very very quickly. He has been warned. He is running out of lives.
NewNeo , 9 hours ago
You should research a lot more. Turkey is a lot more power thank Nazi Germany of the
1930's. Turkey currently have brand new US made equipment. It even houses the nuclear arsenal
of NATO.
You should probably look at information from stratfor and George Friedman to give you a
better understanding.
The failed coupe a few years ago was because the lunatic had gone off the reservation and
was seen as a threat to the region. Obviously the bankers thought it in their benefit to keep
him going and tipped him off.
OliverAnd , 8 hours ago
Clearly the lockdown has hindered your already illiteracy. Turkey has modern US equipment.
Germany did not need US equipment. They made their own equipment; in fact both the US and
USSR used Grrman old tech to develop future tech.
The coup was designed by Erdogan to bring himself to full power. When this is all done he
will be responsible for millions of Turkish lives; after all he is not a Turk but a Muslim
Pontian.
"... By Dr. Karin Kneissl , who works as an energy analyst and book author. She served as the Austrian minister of foreign affairs between 2017-2019. She is currently writing her book 'Die Mobilitätswende' (Mobility in transition), to be published this summer. ..."
"... "humanitarian corridor" ..."
"... "good opposition" ..."
"... "humanitarian war," ..."
"... "worst mistake." ..."
"... "geopolitical commission." ..."
"... "community of the good ones" ..."
"... "Friends of Libya," ..."
"... "good opposition" ..."
"... "exclusive economic zone" ..."
"... "other actors" ..."
"... "mare nostrum" ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
By
Dr.
Karin Kneissl
, who works as an energy analyst and book author. She served as the Austrian minister of foreign affairs
between 2017-2019. She is currently writing her book 'Die Mobilitätswende' (Mobility in transition), to be published this
summer.
A confrontation between the two NATO states France and Turkey continues to trouble the Mediterranean region; Egyptian forces
are mobilizing. And many other military players are continuing operations there.
In March 2011, during a hectic weekend, the French delegation to the UN
Security Council managed to convince all other member States of the Council to support Resolution 1973. It was all about a
"humanitarian
corridor"
for Benghazi, which was considered the
"good opposition"
by the
government of Nicolas Sarkozy. One of his whisperers was the controversial philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, who supported a
French intervention. Levy, fond of the
"humanitarian war,"
found a congenial
partner in Sarkozy.
France was at root of crisis
Muammar Gaddafi had been received generously with all his tents in the park of
the Elysée, but suddenly he was coined the bad guy. The same had happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It was not the Arab
dictator who had changed; it was his usefulness to his allies. The Libyans had been distributing huge amounts of money in
Europe, in particular in Rome and Paris at various levels. In certain cases they knew too much. Plus, the Libyans had been
protecting the southern border of the Mediterranean for the European Union.
So, the French started the war in 2011, took the British on board, which made
the entire adventure look a bit like a replay of the Suez intervention of 1956, the official end of European colonial
interventions. A humanitarian intervention changed into regime change on day two, which was March 20, 2011. Various UN
Security Council members felt trapped by the French.
The US was asked to help, with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and
many other advisers in favor of joining that war. President Obama, however, was reluctant but, in the end, he gave in. In one
of his last interviews while still in the White House, Obama stated that the aftermath of the war in Libya was his
"worst
mistake."
Libya ever since has mostly remained a dossier in the hands of administrative
officials in Washington, but not on the top presidential agenda anymore. This practice has been slightly shifting in the past
weeks. US President Donald Trump and France's Emmanuel Macron had a phone conversation on how to deescalate the situation
there. Trump also spoke on that very topic with Turkish President Recep T. Erdogan. Paris supports General Haftar in his war
against the Turkish-backed Government of National Accord, which is also supported by the European Union, in theory
The triggering momentum for the current rise in tensions was a naval clash
between French- and Turkish-supported vessels. Both nations are NATO members, and an internal alliance investigation is
underway. But France decided to pull out of the NATO naval operation that enforces the Libya arms embargo, set up during the
high-level Berlin conference on Libya in mid-January 2020. Without the French vessels it will be even more toothless than its
critics already deem it. This very initiative on Libya was the first test for the new European commission headed by Ursula von
der Leyen and claiming to be a
"geopolitical commission."
The EU strives to speak
the language of power but keeps failing in Libya, where two members, namely Italy and France, are pursuing very different
goals. Rome is anxious about migration while Paris cares more about the terrorist threat. But both have an interest in
commodities.
When Gaddafi was reintegrated in the
"community
of the good ones"
in early 2004 after a curious British legal twisting on the Lockerbie attack of December 1988, a
bonanza for oil and gas concessions started. The Italian energy company ENI and BP were among the first to have a big foot in
the door. I studied some of those contracts and asked myself why companies were ready to accept such terms. The answer was
maybe in the then rise in the oil price of oil and the proximity of Libya to the European market.
Interestingly, in September 2011, the very day of the opening ceremony of the
Paris conference dubbed
"Friends of Libya,"
a secret oil deal for the French
company Total was published by the French daily Libération. The
"good opposition"
had
promised the French an interesting range of oil concessions. Oil production continuously fell with the rise of the war,
attracting sponsors, militias and smugglers from all horizons. The situation in Libya has since been called 'somalization,'
but it would become even worse, since many more regional powers got involved in Libya than ever was the case in hunger-ridden
Somalia.
In exchange for its military assistance, Turkey recently gained access to
exploration fields off Libya's shores. Ankara had identified an
"exclusive economic
zone"
with the government in Tripoli, which disregards the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Actually, Israel made the
same bilateral demarcation with Cyprus about ten years ago, when Noble Energy started its delineation of blocs in the Levant
Basin. So Turkey is infringing on Greek and Cypriot territorial waters, while President Macron keeps reminding his EU
colleagues of the
"other actors"
in the Mediterranean Sea. Alas, it is nobody's
"mare
nostrum"
as it was 2,000 years ago in the Roman era. In principle, all states which have ratified the UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea should simply comply with their legal obligations.
The crucial question remains: who has which leverage to de-escalate? Is it the
US President, who seemingly has acted more wisely on certain issues in recent times? Or will Russian and Turkish diplomacy be
able to negotiate and implement a truce? The tightrope-walk diplomacy between these last two countries is a most interesting
example of classical diplomacy: interest-based and focused; able to conduct hard-core relations even in times of direct
military confrontation and assassinations (remember the Russian Ambassador Karlov, shot by his Turkish bodyguard in Ankara in
December 2016?).
Meanwhile, yet another actor could move in to complicate everything even more.
On July 20, the Egyptian parliament voted unanimously for the deployment of the national army outside its borders, thereby
taking the risk of direct confrontation with Turkey in Libya. Egyptian troops would be mobilized in support of the eastern
forces of General Khalifa Haftar. Furthermore, Cairo would thereby compete even more obviously with Algeria, spending a
fortune on military control of its border with Libya. Algeria in the past could rely on US support in the region, but with the
gradual decline in US engagement in that part of the world, the country faces a fairly existential crisis.
There are currently two powers, among those involved in Libya, that can still
contain the next stage of a decade of proxy wars started by a French philosopher and various EU oil interests: Russia and the
USA.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Quizblorg
48 minutes ago
Does anything here make sense? No, because France this, Italy that is not how the world is run. The parties
involved here go far beyond countries. Also no mention of Saudi-Arabia/Israel. Who engineered the "Arab
Spring"?
With some tweaks for technique, the same method bragged about by Bill Browder as "The
Hermitage Effect", and if truth be known, a similar method to those of venture capitalists
everywhere. Nobody has time to wait anymore for a company's stock to take off, and guess
right so that you are ahead of the curve – investors want to be rich nownownow, and
venture capitalists have learned you can make your own luck. Browder billed himself as an
'activist investor', because his claim was that he was actually doing the company a favour,
trying to help it succeed with western governance procedures and transparency and all that.
He would identify a company which he assessed was undervalued, and then begin a whisper
campaign against it – the bosses were on the take, lots of merchandise going out the
back door, cooking the books to conceal the losses, bla, bla, bla. The company's stock would
fall, and Hermitage would buy in when it felt the government's attention had been attracted
and it would try to save the company. Government investigation, some management changes and
maybe a government contract or some orders. Confidence returns, stock goes up, Browder rakes
in the cash and virtuously claims to have saved the company's bacon, when it was his
destabilizing efforts that made it shaky in the first place.
Singer is more like Richard Gere's billionaire capitalist in "Pretty Woman" – buying
up companies, busting them up, stripping off the salable assets and selling the husk; a
real-life example would be Mitt Romney.
Fewer care now about finding a cure for a wasting disease, or discovering a boundless
source of cheap and clean energy – the American Dream now is Getting Rich. Maybe it
always was – although I fancy I remember a bit more altruism, perhaps I am only
deluding myself with pleasant those-were-the-days fantasies. At any rate, corporations and
for-profit entities now seem much bolder about causing widespread ruin right out in the open,
and likewise seem to be rewarded for it by moving up the ranks of Most Profitable Companies,
which seems more and more the only measure of success.
If America did not have its giant military, there would be no reason to fear it, be wary
of offending it or even to pay very much attention to it. It is starting to slide over the
edge, but you still have to be cautious about its tail snaking up out of the pit and taking
you down with it.
There is circumstantial evidence the European Union is systematically sinking boats loaded
with refugees coming from the Libyan route. The MS editorial is correct in calling the
Mediterranean "the graveyard of many people from the Middle East and Africa."
It looks like a continental-wide operation of genocide and silence: the Italian and Greek
Coast Guards do the dirty job with secret blessing from their governments, and their
governments count with the tacit blessing (and silence) from the other EU governments and
their respective MSMs. The Russian and Chinese MSMs do nothing because they can't prove it
(as they don't have access to the local) and are more honest than the Western MSM (they don't
report what they can't know).
I wouldn't be surprised if we were talking, after all of this is done, of about some
100,000 dead drowned in the Mediterranean. After that dead boy in a Turkish beach fiasco,
they took care of perfecting the scheme, so that the Italian and Greek coast guards can
operate deeper into the sea, where the drowned corpses cannot be beached. If true, this would
be the most well covered genocide in modern history, and the first one will full and direct
complying from the "free press".
News
/
Politics
Iran's top security official: Harsher revenge awaits perpetrators of Gen. Soleimani's assassination
Wednesday, 22 July 2020 4:29 PM
[ Last
Update: Wednesday, 22 July 2020 4:29 PM ]
Members of the Iraqi honor guard walk past a huge portrait of Iran's late top general Qassem Soleimani (L) and Iraqi
commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, both killed in a US drone strike near Baghdad airport last month, during a memorial
service held in Baghdad's high-security Green Zone on February 11, 2020. (Photo by AFP)
Iran's top security
official
says
harsher
revenge
awaits the perpetrators of the attack that killed senior Iranian anti-terrorism commander
Lieutenant
General Qassem Soleimani and his companions.
In a
post
on his Twitter
page on Wednesday, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani said that US
President Donald Trump had admitted that the American, upon his direct order, committed the crime of assassinating General
Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), and
Abu
Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) counter-terrorism force, who were two
prominent figures of the anti-terrorism campaign.
"The two Iranian and Iraqi nations are avengers of blood of these martyrs
and
will not rest until they punish the perpetrators," read part of the tweet.
"Harsher revenge is one the way," it concluded.
The two commanders and a number of their companions were assassinated in a US airstrike near Baghdad airport on January 3,
as General Soleimani was on an official visit to the Iraqi capital.
Both commanders were extremely popular because of the key role they played in eliminating the US-sponsored Daesh terrorist
group in the region, particularly in Iraq and Syria.
In retaliation for the attack, the IRGC fired volleys of ballistic missiles a US base in Iraq on January 8. According to
the US Defense Department, more than 100 American forces suffered "traumatic brain injuries" during the counterstrike. The
IRGC, however, says Washington uses the term to mask the number of the Americans, who perished during the retaliation.
Iran has also issued an arrest warrant and asked Interpol for help in detaining Trump, who ordered the assassination, and
several other US military and political leaders behind the strike.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday Iran will never forget Washington's
assassination of General Soleimani and will definitely deliver a "counterblow" to the United States.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran will never forget this issue and will definitely deal the counterblow to the Americans,"
Ayatollah Khamenei said in a meeting with visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in Tehran.
"They killed your guest at your own home and unequivocally admitted the atrocity. This is no small matter," Ayatollah
Khamenei told the Iraqi premier.
A UN special rapporteur says
has
condemned the US assassination and said Washington has put the world at unprecedented peril with its murder of Iran's top
anti-terror commander.
Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has also warned that it is high
time the international community broke its silence on Washington's drone-powered unlawful killings.
Press TV's website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:
Move comes as Libya gov't and Turkey demand an end of foreign intervention in support of
commander Khalifa Haftar.
####
I suspect In'Sultin Erd O'Grand is a mole of the garden kind. He goes about digging
one hole for himself after another. If he keeps this up, all the holes will merge in to
one and he will disappear! It would give the West a chance to have someone running Turkey
with a more reliably western perspective though I think it is clear that whatever comes next,
Turkey will not allow itself to be treated as a western annex and pawn.
Lex Wexler name surfaces in way too many places connected to Epstein VIP brothel, Why he is
not arrested like Maxwell?
Notable quotes:
"... Hazell, now known as Lady Iveagh, worked for Epstein 'Madam' Ghislaine Maxwell according to accuser Maria Farmer , who says she also interacted with Iveagh at the Ohio estate of Victoria's Secret boss Leslie Wexner. Farmer said that Hazell "liked having nice drinks, piles of cash and nice outfits." She was listed in Jeffrey Epstein's famous Black Book as "Clare Hazell-Iveagh." ..."
"... Much like Epstein pal Prince Andrew, Hazell has not been charged with any of the crimes she's been accused of, however we somehow doubt she'll be speaking with US prosecutors anytime soon. ..."
Clare Hazell - an interior designer who became the Countess of Iveagh after her 2001
marriage to the 4th Earl of Guinnes (of the brewing dynasty) - took 32 flights on Epstein's
infamous airplane between 1998 and 2000, which included "trips to his homes in New York,
Florida, the Caribbean and New Mexico," according to the
Daily Mail . Epstein accompanied Hazell on all but one of the trips aboard the plane, per
flight logs.
Ms Hazell was studying at Ohio State University in the 1990s and reportedly had a
modelling agency and an apartment in Columbus, Ohio.
The friend described her as being at Epstein's 'beck and call', saying how mutual plans
would be cancelled immediately if she was needed by Epstein and Maxwell. -
Daily Mail
Hazell, now known as Lady Iveagh, worked for Epstein 'Madam' Ghislaine Maxwell according to
accuser Maria
Farmer , who says she also interacted with Iveagh at the Ohio estate of Victoria's Secret
boss Leslie Wexner. Farmer said that Hazell "liked having nice drinks, piles of cash and nice
outfits." She was listed in Jeffrey Epstein's famous Black Book as "Clare Hazell-Iveagh."
Another Epstein accuser, Virginia Giuffre, accused Hazel of sexually abusing her:
Virginia Giuffre @VRSVirginia • 9h v
You want names? There's 2 on this Gwendolyn Beck & Claire Hazel. They both had sexually
abused me as a minor and even though there not JE's age type. These 2 are just some of the
"older" women in JE's orbit that served a purpose wonder what that could be? #notmovingon
#Help W
The dirty co-conspirators are ubiquitous and not one has been held accountable!
... ... ...
Hazell, formerly the President of the NSPCC's West Suffolk branch hosted events for the
charity at Elveden Hall - a lavish estate in Suffolk, England owned by the Guinness family
since 1894 in which several scenes from Eyes Wide Shut were filmed. The estate now operates as
a farm, growing root vegetables and cereals on the 22,000 acre property.
Much like Epstein pal Prince Andrew, Hazell has not been charged with any of the crimes
she's been accused of, however we somehow doubt she'll be speaking with US prosecutors anytime
soon.
The spate of gas explosions are unlikely to be accidents. One maybe but not a spate of
them. Unlikely to be cyber as both a physical leak and ignition source are required.
I agree that most of these explosions are probably not "cyberattacks". Despite all the
scare stories about hacking destroying infrastructure, it's not that easy, especially in the
US where every industry and every company within that industry has their own "standards",
which means there are no real standards a hacker can rely on. It's much easier to steal data
than it is to influence hardware, although that certainly can be done in many cases.
On the other hand, there are plenty of internal Iranian dissidents and foreign visitors
who can be employed by both the CIA and Israel to further a spate of physical attacks.
Obviously these sorts of attacks are going to do next to nothing to actually damage
Iranian infrastructure, as Iran is a big country. These sorts of sabotage are merely a
psychological warfare ploy. This is amplified by Western media coverage of the incidents
which is intended to portray Iran as weak and unable to defend itself.
I've often speculated about what a few hundred saboteurs could do if inserted into the US,
armed with nothing but small arms and a decent amount of explosives. Depending on how well
they are kept covert and how smart they are in choosing targets, you could bring the US to
its knees in perhaps six months of operations. Car bombs, for instance - the US is *made* for
car bombs, given our reliance on vehicles and the congestion in the inner cities. Detonate a
car bomb in each of the 50 Major Metropolitan Areas simultaneously and do so consistently
every week for a month and most of the inner cities would be shut down and under martial
law.
That's the kind of actual physical campaign that could produce significant results in a
country. These pin-prick attacks in Iran are just a combination of psychological warfare plus
perhaps some effects as causing their protective services to be overstretched somewhat.
Mostly what they are is an attempt to provoke Iran into doing something *overtly* against
Israel or the US. The neocons want Iran to be the instigator of the war, not the US or
Israel. They want Iran to provide a casus belli for the war, so that Trump and Netanyahu can
present themselves as blameless for the resulting disaster, much like Bush presented Iraq as
responsible for 9/11.
In essence, the US and Israel are acting as Internet trolls, pin-pricking Iran in an
attempt to get Iran to engage and thus manipulate Iran for their own purposes.
Hopefully Iran will not take the bait, or if it does so, that it makes sure its
retaliations are as covert and deniable as the CIA's while being at least equally as damaging
or more so. If I were Iran, I would specifically target the CIA and its assets in the region.
It would not be hard to identify the CIA officers stationed in most countries and conduct
harassment operations against them, even perhaps engineering "accidental deaths". It would be
an analog of the US-Russian Cold War days. Competent spies aren't that plentiful and killing
them off tends to put a real crimp in operations while mostly being deniable since all such
events would be "classified".
As for the timing of the likely pending Iran war,another consideration is the impact on
financial markets.
The market went into a mini panic last September when the Yemeni missiles hit the Saudi
refineries because the Saudis withdrew ~$60n - $80b from repo markets. Some blame JP Morgan
for that, but someone I know who works at the repo trading desk of the US branch of a large
foreign bank was adamant it was the Saudi pullback and JP Morgan had nothing to do with it. I
thought that the US withdrew Patriot batteries from the Gulf infrastructure in Saudi Arabia,
that is an odd move given Iran could destroy those facilities.
Last week Turkey brought two MIM-23 Hawk air defense systems to the al-Watiyah Airbase.
Last night they were bombed by either French, UAE, Egyptian or Russian mercenary airplanes.
Officially the LNA (Hafter) has taken responsibility for the bombing. Whoever did this had a
message to Turkey: Stop trying to break our red lines.
Thanks for the link to the Egypt/Libya article, b. It's a rare insight into the
often-hidden complexities behind armed conflict. Thanks too for Caitlin J's opinion of
AmeriKKKa's two Right-wing Crank parties. She makes it easier to laugh about their un-funny
antics.
Slightly off topic, but I think Caitlin could be onto something worthwhile with her Utopia
Prepper meme (whether she invented it or not). The way things are going, Hell could freeze
over before sanity emerges in Western Political circles. Prompted by her optimism, I intend
to devote an hour every Sunday afternoon to Utopia Prepping and contemplate the many
potential delights which a mildly more Utopian world would facilitate. There's way too much
negative thinking at present and it's NOT accidental. We'll never get to Utopia if we don't
plan what we'll do when we arrive...
Last week Turkey brought two MIM-23 Hawk air defense systems to the al-Watiyah Airbase. Last
night they were bombed by either French, UAE, Egyptian or Russian mercenary airplanes.
Officially the LNA (Hafter) has taken responsibility for the bombing. Whoever did this had a
message to Turkey: Stop trying to break our red lines.
Wanted to ask the same question, i am sure B will have something as soon as some facts are
there to be dissected, seems for now that all we have to go by is the assumption it is either
US or Israel dirty work, one that is hard to disagree with.
Iran will have to respond, 4 attacks in less than 2 weeks is really taking the piss and
makes them look weak. Quite a reversal from the Iran that was seizing tankers, acting on its
threats and dictating the tempo of escalation. Israel and US are only deterred by credible
threats and the longer Iran waits, the more emboldened they will feel.
Perhaps Iran is more focused on investigations and searching through its own ranks for
collaborators or traitors first, meaning it is still not sure who to hit back at. Is it the
US or Israel, who is directly responsible for these attacks? What would be an appropriate
response? Anything too overt could be counterproductive as there is no proof tying the
explosions to anyone, much less anything concrete that Western media would publish that could
justify Iran's actions.
Hezbollah has plenty of problems of its own as explained in B's Lebanon article... so not
likely we'll see rocket showers on Israel any time soon on Iran's behalf. Seems those new
tankers on the way to Venezuela could be targeted soon too... perhaps they are waiting for
that as their pretext for escalation or retaliation?
I expect Iran to measure its response tit-for-tat. If these explosions are the result of
computer intrusion, Iran will respond in cyberspace. If they are not - and I find it hard to
believe they are, disrupting a centrifuge is one thing (and too clever by half), causing an
explosion is another - then Iran or a proxy will have to respond in kind. As the article
cited below states:
He said Israel was "bracing" for an Iranian response, likely via a cyberattack. In an April
cyberattack attributed by western intelligence officials to Iran, an attempt was made to
increase chlorine levels in water flowing to residential Israeli areas.
Probably BS by Israel and the US, but this sort of thing goes on all the time. Note that
there was no explosions involved.
The problem is that covert operations require some planning, especially if hacking is
involved. So Iran's response might be days, weeks or months delayed. Of course, it can
respond more directly by using Iraqi Shia militias against US forces in Iraq, or allies like
Hezbollah elsewhere. But that is a trap the US neocons have laid - anything Iran does can be
used to justify further attacks. Even if Iran proves that these explosions were not
accidents, they will not be believed. So anything Iran does which is not equally covert will
be used to justify further aggression.
There really is no winning this game by Iran. Only if the US and Israel stops covert
attacks - and that isn't going to happen.
Meanwhile, allegedly the EU has claimed Iran has now triggered the JCPOA dispute
mechanism.
I don't know if this is true, but if so, it represents the final collapse of the JCPOA.
The dispute mechanism has a specific time mechanism to which all parties must adhere. So
within a short period of time, Iran will either be granted its sanctions relief as promised
or the deal will end. The deal's snapback mechanism won't be applied, because Russia and
China will veto that no matter the US does. The US has no standing, but will try anyway just
for the propaganda value.
Once the JCPOA is finally declared dead, the US and Israel will escalate their aggression
against Iran, because no one in the ignorant electorate in those countries will be told that
the deal was ruined by Trump and the EU's spinelessness.
Without the JCPOA, the US can revert to the sort of warmongering it engaged in before the
Iraq war - constantly escalating accusations that can never be proven false and an unending
stream of propaganda justifying a war.
The *only* thing preventing an Iran war is Hezbollah's ability to derail the Israeli
economy. The US and Israel have no choice but to find a solution to that problem. Whether
they will succeed in that, and at what cost to Lebanon, is the question.
Historically, I don't think there has ever been this level of enmity between countries
without a war resulting (other than between nuclear armed nations due to MAD.) It may take
some years more to get the Iran war started, but it is inevitable.
And that recognition, contrary to Bagoom's claims, is *not* advocacy. An Iran war is going
to be very bad for *everyone* except Israel, the neocons and the military-industrial
complex.
"... To review, starting over a week ago a massive explosion was observed lighting up the midnight sky outside Tehran, caught on film by local residents, which Iran's military dismissed as a gas leak explosion incident. But it was later revealed to have occurred at a ballistic missile development facility. ..."
"... And this past week, another reported "accident" occurred at Natanz nuclear complex. But that particular 'mystery' blast caused Iranian officials to lash out in anger Thursday, saying "hostile countries" like the US and Israel are near the point of crossing "red lines". Crucially, Iran also said there were no radioactive leaks as a result of the incident. ..."
On Saturday an explosion
ripped through a power plant in the Iranian city of Ahvaz, marking the third 'mystery'
blast to hit the country in only under a week, and the fourth recently .
State media showed emergency crews on the scene of the daytime incident while a fire raged
at the power plant. This followed days ago
a huge blast which destroyed Sina hospital in northern Tehran, which killed 19 people and
injured 14.
To review, starting over a week ago a massive explosion was observed lighting up the
midnight sky outside Tehran, caught on film by local residents, which Iran's military dismissed
as a gas leak explosion incident. But it was
later revealed to have occurred at a ballistic missile development facility.
And this past week, another reported "accident" occurred at Natanz nuclear complex. But that
particular 'mystery' blast caused Iranian officials to lash out in anger Thursday, saying
"hostile countries" like the US and Israel are near the point of crossing "red lines".
Crucially, Iran also said there were no radioactive leaks as a result of the incident.
Both US and Israeli media, including The New York Times and Times of Israel, have begun
speculating that it
could be part of a Mossad or CIA op to set back Iran's nuclear development .
The Jerusalem Post on Sunday asked in
a headline and op-ed : Have four explosions pushed Iran farther away from a nuke?
Of the myriad fascinating questions surrounding the four recent, mysterious explosions in
Iran, there is still one key issue that rises above the rest: Has any of this significantly
distanced Iran further from a nuclear weapon?
The jury is still out, as there is so much that is unconfirmed. But to date, the early
answer would need to be: probably not .
Since the IAEA's March report that the Islamic Republic crossed the threshold for having
enough low-level enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, the estimated time for Tehran to enrich
enough of that uranium up to a weaponized level dropped from 12 months to as little as four
months.
Most interestingly, an unnamed intelligence source said to be based in the Middle East told
The
New York Times this past week said of the mysterious incident at Natanz: "The blast was
caused by an explosive device planted inside the facility."
The official added that the bombing "destroyed much of the aboveground parts of the facility
where new centrifuges are balanced before they are put into operation."
Reports out of Iran's state media also suggest a possible cyber-attack, to which Tehran
military officials say "they'll respond" if the attack did indeed originate from Iran's
enemies like the US or Israel.
So former tank repairman decided again managed to make a make a mark in world diplomacy
:-).
Notable quotes:
"... Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his attempt to gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the old P5+1: ..."
"... The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S. stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation. ..."
"... Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's alarmist warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters that it would use to threaten Europe and India: ..."
"... This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed these capabilities while under the current embargo. ..."
"... The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law. ..."
Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his
attempt to
gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the
old P5+1:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Tuesday for an arms embargo on Iran to be
extended indefinitely, but his appeal fell flat at the United Nations Security Council, where
Russia and China rejected it outright and close allies of the United States were
ambivalent.
The Trump administration is more isolated than ever in its Iran obsession. The ridiculous
effort to invoke the so-called "snapback" provision of the JCPOA more than two years after
reneging on the agreement met with failure, just as most observers predicted months
ago when it was first floated as a possibility. As I said at the time, "The
administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There
is nothing "intricate" about this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the
JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it." It was never going to work because all of the other
parties to the agreement want nothing to do with the administration's punitive approach, and
U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA meant that it forfeited any rights it had when it was still part
of the deal.
Opposition from Russia and China was a given, but the striking thing about the scene at the
U.N. this week was that major U.S. allies
joined them in rebuking the administration's obvious bad faith maneuver:
The pointedly critical tone of the debate saw Germany accusing Washington of violating
international law by withdrawing from the nuclear pact, while Berlin aligned itself with
China's claim that the United States has no right to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran.
The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to
destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S.
stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran
and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of
its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation.
Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's
alarmist
warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters
that it would use to threaten Europe and India:
If you fail to act, Iran will be free to purchase Russian-made fighter jets that can
strike up to a 3,000 kilometer radius, putting cities like Riyadh, New Delhi, Rome, and
Warsaw in Iranian crosshairs.
This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last
thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how
deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to
launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed
these capabilities while under the current embargo.
It has no need for expensive fighters, and
it is not at all certain that their government would even be interested in acquiring them. Pompeo's presentation was a weak attempt to exaggerate the potential threat from a state that
has very limited power projection, and he found no support because his serial fabrications
about Iran have rendered everything he says to be worthless.
The same administration that wants to keep an arms embargo on Iran forever has no problem
flooding the region with U.S.-made weapons and providing them to some of the worst governments
in the world. It is these client states that are doing the most to destabilize other countries
in the region right now. If the U.N. should be putting arms embargoes on any country, it should
consider imposing them on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to limit their ability to wreak havoc on
Yemen and Libya.
The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to
reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt
to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law.
Re: the Nuremberg trials , I became fascinated by the writings of Paul R. Pillar who
pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to
war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace' . This is when one country sets up an
environment for war against another country. I'll grant you that this is vague but if this is
applicable at all how is this not an accurate description of what we are doing against Iran
and Venezuela?
In both cases, we are imposing a full trade embargo (not sanctions) on basic civilian
necessities and infrastructures and threatening the use of military force. As for Iran, the
sustained and unfair demonization of Iranians is preparing the U.S. public to accept a
ruthless bombing campaign against them as long overdue. We are already attacking the civilian
population of their allies in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
How Ironic that the country that boasts that it won WW2 is now guilty of the very crimes
that it condemned publicly in court.
Thanks for that link, a very interesting and detailed article. It seems Haftar is an
erratic and unreliable character and the LNA's major foreign allies/sponsors, including
Russia, make no secret of the fact that they basically consider him a temporary "necessary
evil" until a more solid and reliable leader can be found.
"... Possibly, the model for the new economy is the prison economy where one can get away with paying subsistance wages, if that. In any case, I think many oligarchs like the idea of workers pleading for work to avoid poverty, hunger and the jackboot on their necks while they rake in the wealth. ..."
And those reading outside the Outlaw US Empire excepting most of Asia and Russia, what
Hudson describes is being done to you, too, although the mechanisms of financial control
differ somewhat. Hudson has written a lot about the EU situation, but the basic tool of
manipulation's the same--debt. Here's the
Hedges/Hudson Interview from December 2018 which is 28.5 minutes. If this were a
collegiate course, I'd assign this and all the other videos I've posted over the past week as
homework so everyone can be clear about what's being done, how and why.
I think the oligarchs and Trump are well aware of what they could do to save or improve the
mainstream economy. It seems, however, that they want to break the US economy, possibly to
bring in their own somewhat feudalistic or worse alternative.
Trump, himself, might even imagine that breaking the workers and turning the economy into
something paying third world cheap labor wages for workers will bring back manufacturing. Who
knows? MAGA for him may be meant solely for the oligarchs. It certainly seems that way.
Possibly, the model for the new economy is the prison economy where one can get away
with paying subsistance wages, if that. In any case, I think many oligarchs like the idea of
workers pleading for work to avoid poverty, hunger and the jackboot on their necks while they
rake in the wealth.
Gangster politicians like to think that they are slick. They talk slang and curse a lot,
grab a girl's ass (or worse), insist that they never read a book, thumb their noses at
intellectual elites, boast about their high IQs, and proclaim their "street smarts." They also
view themselves both as victims of their critics' malice and "great men" alone capable of
curing the nation's ills.
They make their base feel the same: they are despised and yet the real Americans!
Their belief in the boss is unwavering. Only he can make America great again.
Those who oppose his policies are traitors and the threats they pose are serious -- and, if
they are not serious, then they must be made serious. History teaches what might become
necessary in order to teach them a lesson. The Reichstag Fire of 1933 and the (staged)
assassination of Sergei Kirov in 1934 were the dramatic events that led Hitler and Stalin to
justify attacks on enemies, renegades, and supposed traitors to the state. Gangster politicians
under internal pressure pray for a crisis, or what Trump once forecast as a "major event," in
order to rally the troops and clean house.
Gangster politics requires no ideology. Lack of principle itself becomes a principle.
The great man must do what must be done: if that means lying, reneging on deals, shifting
gears, rejecting transparency, and whatever else, then so be it. That he can employ the double
standard is a given.
Big talk takes the place of diplomacy and, if the bluster doesn't work then America alone --
or, better, the boss alone -- can rely on "fire and fury" whenever and wherever he likes.
Traditionalists employed jingoistic rhetoric and wrapped themselves in the flag. The
gangster politician talks like a schoolyard bully and salutes himself.
Gangster politicians of times past had subordinates swear an oath of loyalty not to the
state but to them. Yesterday's "America! Love it or leave it!" has today turned into: "Trump!
Love him -- or shut up!"
"... Contemporary films and television shows constantly depict the CIA, corrupt politicians and greedy corporate interests as interwoven. But these usually appear as either the work of rogue individuals (who must be brought into line) or an always vague and unalterable "system" that demands utter cynicism as the only appropriate response. ..."
In The Communist Manifesto , Marx and Engels referred to the state as "the executive
committee of the ruling class." Reflecting the collective capitalist interest in maintaining
its accumulation process, capable of forging compromises among competing sectors of its own and
other classes, this committee was also meant to enforce legal norms, contracts, and other rules
of the game.
If necessary, indeed, it would even subordinate individual capitalist interests to the
collective interests of the class. The executive committee might foster imperialist ambitions
and declare war. But it might also call for redistributive legislation to foster demand even
though no individual capitalist would want to pay higher taxes to cover the cost. Recalcitrant
elements of the ruling class and protestors from below require punishment. Fascist states
easily get carried away in that regard. Banana republics usually exhibit bureaucratic gangster
tendencies. In a capitalist democracy, however, things are supposedly different: its executive
committee should jail Al Capone and marginalize corruption. The lines between legal and illegal
business transactions are blurring and the term "political mafia" is taking on a whole new
meaning. [1]
Gangster politics has little in common with the interests of petty criminals, white collar
crooks, 'Crips and 'Bloods, and the like. Vast sums are at stake: so, for example, roughly
82.8% of benefits from the 2017 tax bill are being funneled into the portfolios of the top 1%,
[2] and
the corporate tax rate is being dropped from 35% to 21%. The boss knows where his bread is
buttered. That the godfather should get his cut goes without saying: Trump's family will make
upwards of "tens of millions of dollars" from his tax legislation. [3] And with the "ca-ching!"
(that sweet sound of the cash register) comes the "bling" (the payoffs, the hush-money, and the
gifts) along with the "glitz" of the porno stars, the third-rate actresses, the models, and the
rest.
Gangster politics hovers between the authoritarian and the democratic. The boss and his
posse receive their perks for a reason. Gangster politics immunizes capitalist society from
class contradictions that have become too acute or demands from below that have grown too
onerous. Its representatives are not exactly fascists. They don't rely on paramilitary forces,
concentration camps, official censorship, or explicit ideals of a racially pure society. Sleaze
is the ethos of gangster politics. Its style and tone insinuate themselves into existing
institutions such as the town meeting, the mass rally, media, electoral debates, and the use of
legislative tricks, and legal minutiae. Gangster politicians know how to "game" the system.
Their populist rhetoric is window dressing. The old "bicycle mentality" of the petty
bourgeoisie holds sway, namely, push up and kick down.
Gangsters have long been identified with capitalists, cops, and state officials. Balzac
noted that every great fortune hides a great crime. Upton Sinclair and Frank Norris made the
connection as did Ibsen. But, perhaps most notoriously, Bert Brecht saw the gangster ethos
uniting capitalists, imperialists, and militarists in a host of plays beginning with The
Three Penny Opera . Contemporary films and television shows constantly depict the CIA,
corrupt politicians and greedy corporate interests as interwoven. But these usually appear as
either the work of rogue individuals (who must be brought into line) or an always vague and
unalterable "system" that demands utter cynicism as the only appropriate response.
Gangster politics is not a structured institutional formation, as often argued, [4] but rather
a semi-legal adaptation to legal forms of governance. It arises when the gangster's clients
sense danger. Memories still linger concerning the economic crisis of 2008. [5] Banks are still
over-extending unfavorable loans, stocks have been erratic, insider trading is the rule of the
day and the "average guy" is panicking as capital becomes centralized in ever fewer hands.
Production requires an ever smaller yet more educated working class; consumption is
inordinately skewed to the wealthy; and the class question increasingly turns on how best to
disempower working people, those living below the poverty line, women, citizens of color, and
immigrants
Enforcing gerrymandering, curtailing voting rights, privatizing the prison system, access
peddling, and accruing unlimited donations for electoral campaigns are effective tactics that
border on the illegal. Right-wing control over an increasingly centralized media helps deflect
criticisms and divide the disenfranchised and exploited. The audience has been primed. The
boss' mass base detests his critics. Environmentalists, immigrants, people of color, uppity
women, decadent gays and the transgendered infuriate the "good citizens" of America clinging to
outworn traditions in small towns as well as evangelicals and retrograde (white) sectors of the
industrial working class. They despair over loss of jobs, government "waste" and "welfare
chiselers," moral decline, and (above all) the loss of their cultural privileges. They look
back to a time when "men were men," "America was great!" and "happy days" followed one another
non-stop.
Elites nod approvingly, though they have different priorities: de-regulation, lower taxes,
fewer welfare policies, and cuts in the "costs of doing business." Oligarchic tendencies are
built into capitalism and, as they expand, their exploitative impact on workers and the urban
poor become more intense. That is where gangster politics enters the mainstream. Corporate
elites require protection from progressive forces. [6] Their leaders must often
choose between authoritarianism with profits as against democracy with costs. Thy always assume
that they can control their enforcer. Once in office, however, the parvenu begins exercising
power in his own interest. Donald Trump turned on mainstream Republicans, who pandered to the
Tea Party early in the Obama presidency, just as Hitler turned on his former patron, Fritz von
Papen, and his "cabinet of the barons" in 1933. It was the same with General Pinochet who was
installed by the traditional conservative Eduard Frei following the fall of Salvador Allende's
democratic regime in Chile in 1973. Other examples are available.
Gangster politics has its own logic. Traditionalists like to believe that the conflict is
between "them and us." For the political gangster, however, the struggle is between "them and
me." The only fixed rule is -- don't cross the boss! And, if only for this reason, he chooses
to be feared rather than loved. He taunts his subordinates, publicly humiliates them, throws
them under the bus, and perhaps even fires them a few days before their retirement. Cabinet
officials and agency directors require no expertise or security clearance, [7] all that counts is
loyalty to the boss. But, then, loyalty is a one-way street. Internal security advisers, press
secretaries, cabinet secretaries, chiefs of staff, assistants, agency directors, White House
attorneys, and deputies of all stripes come and go. Trump's administration has already had a
turnover rate of 34%, more than triple that of the Obama presidency. [8] Confusion and chaos
proliferate. There is a sense in which the goal of gangster politics is what Franz Neumann
termed "the stateless state." It serves a concrete purpose: everyone knows who is in charge of
everything.
Gangster politicians like to think that they are slick. They talk slang and curse a lot,
grab a girl's ass (or worse), insist that they never read a book, thumb their noses at
intellectual elites, boast about their high IQs, and proclaim their "street smarts." They also
view themselves both as victims of their critics' malice and "great men" alone capable of
curing the nation's ills. They make their base feel the same: they are despised and yet the
real Americans! Their belief in the boss is unwavering. Only he can make America great
again. Those who oppose his policies are traitors and the threats they pose are serious -- and,
if they are not serious, then they must be made serious. History teaches what might become
necessary in order to teach them a lesson. The Reichstag Fire of 1933 and the (staged)
assassination of Sergei Kirov in 1934 were the dramatic events that led Hitler and Stalin to
justify attacks on enemies, renegades, and supposed traitors to the state. Gangster politicians
under internal pressure pray for a crisis, or what Trump once forecast as a "major event," in
order to rally the troops and clean house.
Gangster politics requires no ideology. Lack of principle itself becomes a principle.
The great man must do what must be done: if that means lying, reneging on deals, shifting
gears, rejecting transparency, and whatever else, then so be it. That he can employ the double
standard is a given. Big talk takes the place of diplomacy and, if the bluster doesn't work
then America alone – or, better, the boss alone – can rely on "fire and fury"
whenever and wherever he likes. Traditionalists employed jingoistic rhetoric and wrapped
themselves in the flag. The gangster politician talks like a schoolyard bully and salutes
himself. Gangster politicians of times past had subordinates swear an oath of loyalty not to
the state but to them. Yesterday's "America! Love it or leave it!" has today turned into:
"Trump! Love him –or shut up!"
... ,,, ,,
References
[1]
Herbert Marcuse, 1974 Paris Lectures at Vincennes University eds. Peter-Erwin Jansen and
Charles Reitz (Published by the Marcuse Archives).
[2]
Dylan Matthews, "The Republican tax bill got worse: now the top 1% gets 83% of the gains,"VOX,
December 18, 2017,
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/republican-tax-bill-congress-conference-tax-policy-center
[3]
Louis Jacobson, "How much does the Trump family have to gain from GOP tax bills?"PolitiFact,
November 27,
2017,http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/27/lloyd-doggett/how-much-does-trump-family-have-gain-gop-tax-bills/
[4]
The term "gangster state" has been used often, and there are a number of different
interpretations of the phenomenon ie. Katherine Hirschfeld, Gangster States: Organized Crime,
Kleptocracy and Political Collapse (New York: Palgrave, 2015); Charles Tilly, "State Formation
as Organized Crime" in eds. Peter Evans et. al (Bringing the State Back In (New York: Cambridge
University press, 1985); Michael Hirsh, "Gangster States" in
http://www.newsweek.com/gangster-state-166356Paul Craig Roberts, "Gangster State America: Where
is America's Democracy?"
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/06/gangster-state-america-paul-craig-roberts-2/;
[5]
Gretchen Morgenstern and Joshua Rosner, Reckles$ Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed,
and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon (New York: Henry Holt, 2011).
[6]
Note the discussion in Stephen Eric Bronner, The Bitter Taste of Hope: Ideals, Ideologies
and Interests in the Age of Obama (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2017), 1ff.
[7]
Max Greenwood, "At least 30 White House officials, Trump appointees lack full clearances:
report," The Hill, February 9,
2018http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/373220-at-least-30-white-house-officials-trump-appointees-lack-full#.Wn7-uVrZvb8.facebook
[9]
Nicholas Confessore and Karen Yourish, "$2 Billion Worth of Free Media for Donald Trump,"
New York Times , March 15,
2016https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html
Stephen Eric Bronner is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of Political Science and
Director of Global Relations for the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights at
Rutgers University. His most recent work is The Bitter Taste of Hope: Ideals, Ideologies
and Interests in the Age of Obama.
From comments: "
neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce
wholly artificial directives. Also, the work of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana
Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving into a totalitarian system of control through
cybernetic data aggregation."
"... By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and
creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more
oppressive than the system it replaced. ..."
"... Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and
micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and
hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The
introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age
of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom
but demands conformity and silence. ..."
"... Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state,
insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of
freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so
much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control. ..."
"... Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The
bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning
efficacy. It has become an end in itself. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced. ..."
"... Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and silence. ..."
"... Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state, insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control. ..."
"... Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning efficacy. It has become an end in itself. ..."
"... The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a radicalized form of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become overt. ..."
"... The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with nationhood. ..."
Thousands of people march through London to protest against underfunding and privatisation
of the NHS. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Barcroft Images M y life was saved last year by the
Churchill Hospital in Oxford, through a skilful procedure
to remove a cancer from my body . Now I will need another operation, to remove my jaw from
the floor. I've just learned what was happening at the hospital while I was being treated. On
the surface, it ran smoothly. Underneath, unknown to me, was fury and tumult. Many of the staff
had objected to a decision by the National Health Service
to privatise the hospital's cancer scanning . They complained that the scanners the private
company was offering were less sensitive than the hospital's own machines. Privatisation, they
said, would put patients at risk. In response,
as the Guardian revealed last week , NHS England threatened to sue the hospital for libel
if its staff continued to criticise the decision.
The dominant system of political thought in this country, which produced both the creeping
privatisation of public health services and this astonishing attempt to stifle free speech,
promised to save us from dehumanising bureaucracy. By rolling back the state, neoliberalism
was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a
semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced.
Workers find themselves enmeshed in a
Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend
on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down,
hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into
public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is
brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and
silence.
Much of the theory behind these transformations arises from the work of Ludwig von Mises. In
his book Bureaucracy , published in 1944, he
argued that there could be no accommodation between capitalism and socialism. The creation of
the National Health Service in the UK, the New Deal in the US and other experiments in social
democracy would lead inexorably to the bureaucratic totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and
Nazi Germany.
He recognised that some state bureaucracy was inevitable; there were certain functions that
could not be discharged without it. But unless the role of the state is minimised –
confined to defence, security, taxation, customs and not much else – workers would be
reduced to cogs "in a vast bureaucratic machine", deprived of initiative and free will.
By contrast, those who labour within an "unhampered capitalist system" are "free men", whose
liberty is guaranteed by "an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote". He
forgot to add that some people, in his capitalist utopia, have more votes than others. And
those votes become a source of power.
His ideas, alongside the writings of
Friedrich Hayek , Milton Friedman and other neoliberal thinkers, have been applied in this
country by Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, Theresa May and, to an alarming extent, Tony
Blair. All of those have attempted to privatise or marketise public services in the name of
freedom and efficiency, but they keep hitting the same snag: democracy. People want essential
services to remain public, and they are right to do so.
If you hand public services to private companies, either you create a private monopoly,
which can use its dominance to extract wealth and shape the system to serve its own needs
– or you introduce competition, creating an incoherent, fragmented service characterised
by the institutional failure you can see every day on our railways. We're not idiots, even if
we are treated as such. We know what the profit motive does to public services.
So successive governments decided that if they could not privatise our core services
outright, they would subject them to "market discipline". Von Mises repeatedly warned against
this approach. "No reform could transform a public office into a sort of private enterprise,"
he cautioned. The value of public administration "cannot be expressed in terms of money".
"Government efficiency and industrial efficiency are entirely different things."
"Intellectual work cannot be measured and valued by mechanical devices." "You cannot
'measure' a doctor according to the time he employs in examining one case." They ignored his
warnings.
Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state,
insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name
of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became
not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control.
Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The
bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning
efficacy. It has become an end in itself.
Its perversities afflict all public services. Schools teach to the test , depriving
children of a rounded and useful education. Hospitals manipulate waiting times, shuffling
patients from one list to another. Police forces ignore some crimes, reclassify others, and
persuade suspects to admit to extra offences to improve their statistics . Universities urge their
researchers to
write quick and superficial papers , instead of deep monographs, to maximise their scores
under the research excellence framework.
As a result, public services become highly inefficient for an obvious reason: the
destruction of staff morale. Skilled people, including surgeons whose training costs hundreds
of thousands of pounds, resign or retire early because of the stress and misery the system
causes. The leakage of talent is a far greater waste than any inefficiencies this quantomania
claims to address.
New extremes in the surveillance and control of workers are not, of course, confined to the
public sector. Amazon has patented
a wristband that can track workers' movements and detect the slightest deviation from
protocol. Technologies are used to monitor peoples' keystrokes, language, moods and tone of
voice. Some companies have begun to experiment with the
micro-chipping of their staff . As the philosopher Byung-Chul
Han points out , neoliberal work practices, epitomised by the gig economy, that
reclassifies workers as independent contractors, internalise exploitation. "Everyone is a
self-exploiting worker in their own enterprise."
The freedom we were promised turns out to be
freedom for capital , gained at the expense of human liberty. The system neoliberalism has
created is a bureaucracy that tends towards absolutism, produced in the public services by
managers mimicking corporate executives, imposing inappropriate and self-defeating efficiency
measures, and in the private sector by subjection to faceless technologies that can brook no
argument or complaint.
Attempts to resist are met by ever more extreme methods, such as the threatened lawsuit at
the Churchill Hospital. Such instruments of control crush autonomy and creativity. It is true
that the Soviet bureaucracy von Mises rightly denounced reduced its workers to subjugated
drones. But the system his disciples have created is heading the same way.
The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a
radicalized form of neoliberalism. If 'free markets' of enterprising individuals have
been tested to destruction, then capitalism is unable to articulate an ideology with which to
legitimise itself.
Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist
ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian
orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become
overt.
The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a
medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs
collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with
nationhood.
A corporate state emerges, free of the regulatory fetters of democracy. The final
restriction on the market - democracy itself - is removed. There then is no separate market
and state, just a totalitarian market state.
This is the best piece of writing on neoliberalism I have ever seen. Look, 'what is in
general good and probably most importantly what is in the future good'. Why are we
collectively not viewing everything that way? Surely those thoughts should drive us all?
Pinkie123: So good to read your understandings of neoliberalism. The political project is the
imposition of the all seeing all knowing 'market' on all aspects of human life. This version
of the market is an 'information processor'. Speaking of the different idea of the
laissez-faire version of market/non market areas and the function of the night watchman state
are you aware there are different neoliberalisms? The EU for example runs on the version
called 'ordoliberalism'. I understand that this still sees some areas of society as separate
from 'the market'?
ADamnSmith: Philip Mirowski has discussed this 'under the radar' aspect of neoliberalism. How
to impose 'the market' on human affairs - best not to be to explicit about what you are
doing. Only recently has some knowledge about the actual neoliberal project been appearing.
Most people think of neoliberalism as 'making the rich richer' - just a ramped up version of
capitalism. That's how the left has thought of it and they have been ineffective in stopping
its implementation.
Finally. A writer who can talk about neoliberalism as NOT being a retro version of classical
laissez faire liberalism. It is about imposing "The Market" as the sole arbiter of Truth on
us all.
Only the 'Market' knows what is true in life - no need for 'democracy' or 'education'.
Neoliberals believe - unlike classical liberals with their view of people as rational
individuals acting in their own self-interest - people are inherently 'unreliable', stupid.
Only entrepreneurs - those close to the market - can know 'the truth' about anything. To
succeed we all need to take our cues in life from what the market tells us. Neoliberalism is
not about a 'small state'. The state is repurposed to impose the 'all knowing' market on
everyone and everything. That is neoliberalism's political project. It is ultimately not
about 'economics'.
The left have been entirely wrong to believe that neoliberalism is a mobilisation of
anarchic, 'free' markets. It never was so. Only a few more acute thinkers on the left
(Jacques Ranciere, Foucault, Deleuze and, more recently, Mark Fisher, Wendy Brown, Will
Davies and David Graeber) have understood neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of
control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce wholly artificial directives. Also, the work
of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving
into a totalitarian system of control through cybernetic data aggregation.
Only in theory is neoliberalism a form of laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is not a case of the
state saying, as it were: 'OK everyone, we'll impose some very broad legal parameters, so
we'll make sure the police will turn up if someone breaks into your house; but otherwise
we'll hang back and let you do what you want'. Hayek is perfectly clear that a strong state
is required to force people to act according to market logic. If left to their own devices,
they might collectivise, think up dangerous utopian ideologies, and the next thing you know
there would be socialism. This the paradox of neoliberalism as an intellectual critique of
government: a socialist state can only be prohibited with an equally strong state. That is,
neoliberals are not opposed to a state as such, but to a specifically centrally-planned state
based on principles of social justice - a state which, to Hayek's mind, could only end in t
totalitarianism. Because concepts of social justice are expressed in language, neoliberals
are suspicious of linguistic concepts, regarding them as politically dangerous. Their
preference has always been for numbers. Hence, market bureaucracy aims for the quantification
of all values - translating the entirety of social reality into metrics, data, objectively
measurable price signals. Numbers are safe. The laws of numbers never change. Numbers do not
lead to revolutions. Hence, all the audit, performance review and tick-boxing that has been
enforced into public institutions serves to render them forever subservient to numerical
(market) logic. However, because social institutions are not measurable, attempts to make
them so become increasingly mystical and absurd. Administrators manage data that has no
relation to reality. Quantitatively unmeasurable things - like happiness or success - are
measured, with absurd results.
It should be understood (and I speak above all as a critic of neoliberalism) that
neoliberal ideology is not merely a system of class power, but an entire metaphysic, a way of
understanding the world that has an emotional hold over people. For any ideology to
universalize itself, it must be based on some very powerful ideas. Hayek and Von Mises were
Jewish fugitives of Nazism, living through the worst horrors of twentieth-century
totalitarianism. There are passages of Hayek's that describe a world operating according to
the rules of a benign abstract system that make it sound rather lovely. To understand
neoliberalism, we must see that it has an appeal.
However, there is no perfect order of price signals. People do not simply act according to
economic self-interest. Therefore, neoliberalism is a utopian political project like any
other, requiring the brute power of the state to enforce ideological tenets. With tragic
irony, the neoliberal order eventually becomes not dissimilar to the totalitarian regimes
that Hayek railed against.
Nationalised rail in the UK was under-funded and 'set up to fail' in its latter phase to make
privatisation seem like an attractive prospect. I have travelled by train under both
nationalisation and privatisation and the latter has been an unmitigated disaster in my
experience. Under privatisation, public services are run for the benefit of shareholders and
CEO's, rather than customers and citizens and under the opaque shroud of undemocratic
'commercial confidentiality'.
What has been very noticeable about the development of bureaucracy in the public and private
spheres over the last 40 years (since Thatcher govt of 79) has been the way systems are
designed now to place responsibility and culpability on the workers delivering the services -
Teachers, Nurses, social workers, etc. While those making the policies, passing the laws,
overseeing the regulations- viz. the people 'at the top', now no longer take the rap when
something goes wrong- they may be the Captain of their particular ship, but the
responsibility now rests with the man sweeping the decks. Instead they are covered by tying
up in knots those teachers etc. having to fill in endless check lists and reports, which have
as much use as clicking 'yes' one has understood those long legal terms provided by software
companies.... yet are legally binding. So how the hell do we get out of this mess? By us as
individuals uniting through unions or whatever and saying NO. No to your dumb educational
directives, No to your cruel welfare policies, No to your stupid NHS mismanagement.... there
would be a lot of No's but eventually we could say collectively 'Yes I did the right thing'.
'The left wing dialogue about neoliberalism used to be that it was the Wild West and that
anything goes. Now apparently it's a machine of mass control.'
It is the Wild West and anything goes for the corporate entities, and a machine of control
of the masses. Hence the wish of neoliberals to remove legislation that protects workers and
consumers.
"Bill Gates claiming that he didn't meet with Epstein until 2013 is complete crap. A 2001
newspaper article on Epstein said that Epstein made millions from his business links with Gates
in the 1990s."
Pro-Samsung media outlets in South Korea came under fire from Jewish groups after
utilizing anti-Semitism to belittle Singer.
"Elliott is led by a Jew, Paul E. Singer, and ISS [an advisory firm that analyzed the
merger] is an affiliate of Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI), whose key
shareholders are Jewish. According to a source in the finance industry, Jews have a robust
network demonstrating influence in a number of domains," the South Korean financial
publication MoneyToday said last week.
Meanwhile, Mediapen, another local publication, asserted that "Jews are known to wield
enormous power on Wall Street and in global financial circles" and that it is a "well-known
fact that the US government is swayed by Jewish capital."
Jewish money, it reported, "has long been known to be ruthless and merciless."
If ever there was a time, it's now. Oil has bottomed out. They can top off the national
reserves on the cheap and profit when their war sends prices up again. Maybe it's why The
Orange Goober has ordered the Navy to "shoot down" any Iranian boats that
harass/approach/rudely gesture at US ships.
Ritter's article worries me. There is now a sales argument for war: "don't worry about oil
prices going sky high, Iran can't use that weapon against us now!".
You over excitable little Iran war-monkeys really should take time out of your busy
war-monkey daily-schedules to learn something about the topography of Iran and it's defensive
and offensive military capabilities.
It would certainly save everyone else from having to listen to you being wrong yet
again.
You're on the right track. There's a huge supply glut as all forms of storage are mostly
filled as proven by the negative WTI pricing. Global demand is still being destroyed. War in
the Persian Gulf region will further destroy demand; and since very little oil's being
shipped from there, the supply glut won't be used up anytime soon--certainly not quickly
enough to see a sharp rebound in oil price. The crucial point is domestic US refineries have
cut back their runs as their margins are even thinner than before, plus demand destruction is
still occurring, thus the domestic storage glut. The wife and I jested last night if we only
had a rail spur we could order up a couple of tank cars full of unleaded at the current very
distressed price and be set for a longtime.
As The
Saker notes in his latest , Trump must make the voting public look everywhere except at
him and Congress, the bellowing at Iran being part of that entire theatre. Yes, a mistake
could have very negative consequences for the USN and all US assets in the region as well as
Occupied Palestine--the overall underlying dynamic hasn't changed since Trump broke the Iran
Nuclear Treaty. Too add further insult to Trump and Pompeo, Iran's doing a
much better job at containing COVID-19 than the Outlaw US Empire :
"The US pandemic death toll is this week heading above 50,000 compared with Iran's figure
of 5,300. Considering the respective population numbers of 330 and 80 million that suggests
Iran is doing a much better job at containing the virus. On a per-capita basis, according to
publicly available data, Iran's mortality rate is less than half that of the US.
"This is while the US has sanctioned Iran to the hilt. American sanctions – arguably
illegal under international law – have hit Iran's ability to import medical supplies to
cope with COVID-19 and other fatal diseases, yet Iran through its own resources is evidently
managing the crisis much better than the US."
As with the Tar Baby, the more wrestling the Outlaw US Empire does the weaker it gets.
They can't invade. That's your own moronic straw-man. And yes, it would further cut supply
and prices would go up. The current bottom is due to overproduction but so long as
civilization cranks along the oil gets used eventually.
"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be
born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."
– Antonio Gramsci
The Pandemic & Public Health Crisis
On January 20th, 2020, the first confirmed case of COVID-19 infection took place in the
United States. Since then, over 240,000 Americans have tested positive for the COVID-19 virus,
with over 6,000 dying as a result of the pandemic. The New York Times suggests that the
actual numbers are likely 6-10 times higher than is being currently reported.
According to studies from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), people with
underlying health conditions such as diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure,
heart disease, and those who smoke, are at high-risk of severe illness or death if they
contract the virus. Unfortunately, that's a lot of Americans.
Several days ago, Dr. Anthony Fauci estimated that anywhere between 100,000-240,000
Americans will die from COVID-19 by the end of August, and that's if "we do everything
perfectly," as the good doctor put it. Since no one actually believes that the United States
will conduct the response in a "perfect" manner, we can assume those numbers are low.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume they're correct. For some perspective, 116,708
Americans died in World War I (1914-1918). Roughly 416,800 Americans died in World War II
(1941-1945). Over 40,000 Americans died in the Korean War (1950-1953). And 70,000 Americans
died in the Vietnam War (1965-1975).
Perhaps we throw around large numbers too often, or maybe there's simply no way to humanize
240,000 lives -- regardless, we cannot allow the U.S. government to normalize gross numbers of
fatalities, especially as a result of a completely preventable pandemic. Remember, this isn't a
'Natural Disaster' -- this is a 'Man Made Disaster,' and it should be treated as such. Yes,
Trump is responsible, but he's not the only one. In fact, individuals aren't the problem. The
entire Neoliberal Capitalist project is to blame.
Americans aren't unhealthy because they've made bad choices as individuals. Americans are
disproportionately unhealthy (when compared to both industrialized and industrializing nations)
and susceptible to the worst effects of COVID-19 because Neoliberal Capitalist policies have
created a social, political, economic, and ecological context in which this pandemic can thrive
and impose maximum destruction.
Deindustrialization, privatization, and deregulation, has driven down the cost of labor,
creating millions of working-poor Americans who live on credit and swim in mounds of debt,
while attempting to navigate a social landscape of food deserts, fast food chains, sugar-rich
foods, and low-wage service sector work. This context creates a population of addicted,
depressed, and desperate workers whose sole pleasure at the end of a long shift is a can of
Coke and bag of potato chips.
People don't purposely make themselves obese and unhealthy. When people are put in desperate
situations, they make impulsive decisions. That's how people behave in a context of scarcity
and oppression. Unfortunately, this is exactly the social context in which COVID-19 could cause
extreme and permanent damage.
The Political Crisis
The political context in the U.S. is equally disturbing. Since the 1970s, politicians have
drifted further and further into the realm of absurdity and utter corruption. Gone are the days
of enlightened debates. Enter the age of Trump, Tweets, and trolling.
As empires decline, so does the quality of their leaders. The U.S. might wish to run away
from reality, but Uncle Sam can't run away from history. History has finally caught up with the
U.S. Indeed, Donald Trump is the result of forty-plus years of hyper-individuality, 'greed is
good' culture, superficial materialism, and a politics based not on substance or principles,
but looks, marketability, and adherence to Neoliberal fundamentalist ideologies.
One of the few principled politicians in Washington D.C., Bernie Sanders, was raked over the
coals by the corporate press for simply attempting to give Americans a basic social safety-net.
That, for the Neoliberals, was too much. CNN and MSNBC unleashed the pundit hounds. The New
York Times and Washington Post ran round-the-clock editorials about the "dangers" of
Sanders' policies, his supposed "unelectability," and "radical" following, degrading the tens
of millions of poor and working class people who largely see Bernie's campaign as their last
electoral hope.
Now, Joe Biden is the frontrunner. As a result, virtually everyone I know and work with has
checked out of the electoral scene. Most of my friends have already come to the conclusion that
Trump will win again in 2020. Hell, his numbers continue to rise even in the midst of the
deadliest pandemic in over a 100 years, a pandemic he could've prevented. Frustrating, but not
surprising.
Most Americans have checked out of politics. It's not that they don't care. They just don't
believe that participating will make a difference. Who could blame them, really? I'm 35 years
old. The U.S. government hasn't implemented one major program that's benefitted me since the
day I was born. Obamacare? Get real. Every major political institution in this country has
rapidly deteriorated over the course of my life.
When I was 16, Bush II, with the help of his brother, stole the White House from Al Gore. No
one really did anything about it, even Al Gore. That was 20 years ago. Since then, we've
experienced 9/11, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, two terms of GWB, the 2008 Recession,
Obama's bullshit 'Hope & Change,' which really meant 'More Of The Same,' the Tea Party,
nationwide union busting efforts, the explosion of charter schools, Citizens United, corporate
consolidation, financial deregulation, increasingly militarized policing, exploding prison
populations, privatization of public goods and services, and elections that no one trusts
because paper ballots are gone and billionaires own the electoral process. And yes, in 2016,
the election of Donald Trump, the perfect ending to a 40 year nightmare.
Let's remember why Trump won in the first place. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton because
Democrats stayed home. Bottom line. Democrats stayed home because they were betrayed by Obama,
disgusted by Clinton, and upset about the entire 2016 primary process. As many others have
pointed out, Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Here, we should be very clear: yes, Trump
poses unique challenges and threats, but he is not the primary source of our collective
problems. Our collective problems are structural, not individual, in nature.
Right now, the entire electoral-parliamentary process of representative democracy should be
in question. Quite obviously, this particular mode of democratic participation has reached its
limits. People are flat-out sick and tired of voting for politicians who answer to
corporations. People are tired of the Democrat vs. Republican electoral carnival. Who could
blame them? I'm tired of it. You're tired of it. We're all tired of it.
This is the toxic legacy of Reaganism, a bankrupt ideology that has destroyed the American
political system, civic society, and popular culture. As a result, both major political parties
have drifted so far to the right that people can barely tell the difference between the two.
The Democratic Party is a walking corpse. And the Republican Party is full-blown batshit crazy.
The Green Party doesn't really stand a chance, but I give them credit for trying to develop an
alternative, however flawed it may be. After all, the Greens, not the Dems, came up with the
'Green New Deal.'
Large NGOs are moribund and, in many ways, counterproductive, even on their best days. Right
now, the left contains no structural articulation of its politics beyond various regional
organizations and radical local unions. In reality, most of 'the left' as we know it primarily
exists in online forums and alternative media projects. The political situation is dire, no
doubt.
The only way out of this mess is through deep organizing at the workplace and within
communities. Tactically, this will take the form of massive strikes, street protests, targeted
direct actions, and militant non-violent resistance. But people also need a vision and a
strategy, and structures and institutions to carry out that vision and strategy. Right now,
both are in short order. However, like all moments of immense historical crises, this context
provides an opportunity to introduce radical alternatives, and hopefully, change course. If
leftwing groups can't use this moment to radicalize and politicize people, shame on us.
The Crisis of Capitalism
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite what you might've heard on corporate news outlets,
Global Capitalism was on the ropes. Liberal economists such as Paul Krugman and Dean Baker, but
also leftwing economists such as Jack Rasmus, Doug Henwood, and Richard Wolff, among others,
have been sounding the alarm bells for some time now. The pandemic ended up being the match
that lit a combustible array of socio-economic ingredients, including wide-spread
underemployment, entire legions of workers who've dropped out of the labor pool, millions
living in poverty, millions more on the verge of poverty, stagnating wages, hundreds of
thousands of Americans sleeping on the streets, tens of millions lacking health coverage, and
the majority of Americans drowning in ever-growing debt.
The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the hollowness and brutality of Global Capitalism. The
most vulnerable will endure the brunt of this pandemic. They already have. Those who were
barely surviving before this crisis will be lucky to survive the crisis. And so it goes.
The multitude of injustices and structural inequalities that existed before the pandemic
will be exacerbated during a global health crisis and economic depression. The brutal legacies
of colonization, imperialism, and neo-imperialism put the most vulnerable at risk and expose a
system that's incapable of providing even the most basic necessities to those most in need. In
fact, quite the opposite, as Wall Street receives trillions of dollars for wrecking the global
economy, ordinary Americans will have to wait weeks for their measly $1,200 stimulus
checks.
Unlike 2008, the free marketeers are nowhere to be found. During the Great Financial
Recession, the market fundamentalists wanted the whole system to collapse. The financial press
blamed the recession on overpaid auto workers and poor families, especially poor black
families, who the corporate pundits insisted "bought homes they couldn't afford." That
was the dominant narrative in 2008. The calls for austerity were swift and loud. This time
around, not so much.
Today, millions of Americans identify as socialists, and Bernie Sanders' policies, flawed
and inadequate as they may be, are supported by the majority of Democrats, many Independents,
and even some Republicans. It's true that Bernie's policies aren't 'socialist' in the
traditional sense, but they're socialistic in nature, and provide a welcome alternative to
Neoliberal barbarism. Thanks to Occupy Wall Street and radical unions, today's context is much
different. Americans are much further to the left than they were twelve years ago.
Ralph Nader has long described the U.S. economic system as "socialism for the rich, and
rugged individualism for the rest of us." This is true. As Christian Parenti points out in a
recent article in Jacobin , the financialization of the U.S. economy is already largely
socialized, using public funds to prop-up private institutions, but with little to no social
benefit for poor and working class people. Today, the COVID-19 pandemic shows us that the state
is more important than ever before. Indeed, the Federal Government is the only entity powerful
enough to reign-in capital. Ironically, as Parenti notes, only socialist policies can revive
21st Century Capitalism.
The state is also the only entity capable of dealing with a pandemic: providing healthcare
supplies, financial resources, dealing with supply chain and logistical challenges, directing
private sector production, etc. Here, we are witnessing in real-time the fundamental limits of
private power and market fundamentalism within the context of a global healthcare crisis. Now
is not the time to coddle capitalism -- now is the time to castrate capitalism. Unless the left
has a strategy to bypass the state and provide the many services the state provides by
alternative means, our approach to the ensuing economic depression must include an analysis of
state power, how it relates to capital, and how leftwing organizations and movements relate to
both.
Historian Alfred McCoy, in his recent book, In the Shadows of the
American Century , notes that China will overtake the U.S. as the largest economy in
the world by 2030, perhaps sooner (Trump & COVID-19 have helped). Then again, China faces
its own internal dilemmas, including an increasingly affluent workforce that's very much
interested in liberal democratic norms, and a growing number of repressed workers who are
fighting back against China's unique brand of 'Authoritarian Capitalism.' Some of the same
contradictions and questions can be applied to India, the world's 5th largest economy,
authoritarian-religious nationalism, and hundreds of millions of precarious workers provide a
potentially explosive political context.
Without question, capitalism will survive COVID-19. The unfolding COVID-19 pandemic and
economic crises will alter the future of capitalism. The real question is: how can workers and
ordinary people nudge things in a preferred direction, a path that leads to more collectivism
and cooperation? How can we exploit the contradictions within the system? How can we ruthlessly
expose the inherent limitations and internal contradictions of capital accumulation?
Most importantly, we must not exit this crisis with a more authoritarian version of
capitalism. Giving the banks and multinational corporations more power is a death knell for the
human species and much of the planet. Time is running out. The economic shocks will continue in
frequency and severity. Now is the time for alternatives.
The Crisis of Militarism & Empire
Since 9/11, the U.S. has bombed seven nations: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria,
Somalia, and Yemen. U.S. troops remain in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, with special
forces operations taking place in Pakistan and Somalia. The ongoing war in Afghanistan is the
longest war in U.S. history. And the U.S. continues to economically, logistically, politically,
and militarily support the systematic repression and genocide of the Palestinian people vis a
vi the brutal Israeli regime.
According to military historian, Nick Turse, U.S. forces conduct, on average, three combat
or intelligence missions per day on the continent of Africa. Of course, Uncle Sam's growing
footprint in Africa has gone virtually unreported in the corporate press. In October, 2017,
when 9 U.S. troops were killed in the 'Tongo Tongo Ambush' in Niger, most Americans had no idea
that U.S. troops were even stationed in Niger, let alone conducting combat missions. While it's
true that U.S. Empire is in decline, it's also true that empires throughout history lash out
during their final days, leaving a path of destruction in their wake.
As a result, the human cost of the post-9/11 'War on Terror' has been immense. Iraq:
300,000-1,000,000 dead. Syria: 400,000-600,000 dead. Afghanistan: 120,000 dead. Libya: 30,000
dead. Pakistan: 50,000 dead. Somalia: (unknown). Yemen: 100,000 dead. On the U.S. side, over
7,000 troops have lost their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Pakistan, with more than
double that number of private contractors dying in U.S.-led conflicts.
The Great Oil Wars of the early 21st Century have also caused the greatest refugee crisis
since World War II, with more than 100,000 Syrian refugees fleeing their war-torn country, and
over 3 million Iraqis internally displaced. Tens of thousands have fled Libya. The same is true
in Pakistan. Millions abroad live in abject poverty and suffer preventable diseases as a result
of Uncle Sam's military adventures.
Veterans of course, also suffer from Uncle Sam's hubris, with over 10,000 having committed
suicide since 9/11. On a personal note, I've lost more of the marines from my platoon than died
during our unit's three combat deployments to Iraq.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: "The bombs in Vietnam explode at home -- they destroy
the dream and possibility for a decent America." The same is true today, as the United States
spends what the next 15 nations spend combined on its military empire ($750 billion a year), a
monstrosity and sign of deep societal decay. According to Brown University, the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan have cost U.S. taxpayers $5.9 trillion. With that money, the U.S. government
could've paid off every Americans' credit card, student loan, and auto loan debt, and still had
money left over.
As the U.S. spends trillions of dollars on weapons of war, hospitals run out of surgical
masks and ventilators. A ventilator costs anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 -- a tomahawk
missile costs $1.4 million.
Like every empire, the U.S. has drained its domestic resources to maintain its imperial
hegemony, but that influence is waning with time. As the republic crumbles under the weight of
its own internal contradictions, U.S. allies are distancing themselves, while Uncle Sam's foes
are becoming increasingly empowered with each blunder and catastrophe that's unfolded since
9/11. As Chomsky points out, the U.S. has been in decline since World War II, the peak of Uncle
Sam's imperial prowess.
Already, Trump is using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to ramp-up tensions with both
Venezuela and Iran, two countries the U.S. has been politically, militarily, and economically
terrorizing for decades. During the pandemic, U.S.-imposed sanctions in Iran have caused a
disproportionate number of deaths due to lack of proper health equipment and medicine.
Fortunately, several European countries have broken the sanctions and delivered medical
goods to the Iranian government. Also, as we speak, Trump has directed the U.S. Navy to move
several U.S. Navy ships in close proximity to Venezuelan waters under the pretext of "curbing
drug smuggling" -- no doubt a top priority during the worst pandemic since 1918.
History shows us that every empire eventually confronts the same choice: maintain military
forces and watch the republic crumble from within, or de-escalate conflicts, demilitarize, and
maintain some semblance of a functioning state. The Roman Empire chose the former. The British
Empire chose the latter. The coming decade will determine which path Uncle Sam chooses. If the
last 20 years are a window into the future, God help us all.
If we hope to survive the next pandemic, the U.S. government must redirect the resources
it's currently spending on weapons of war, and instead invest in public healthcare
infrastructure (hospitals, equipment, resources, nurses, personnel, EMTs), public education
(medical schools, tuition free), housing (free and available to all), and research and
development.
If we hope to survive the coming decades, the U.S. government must redirect its vast
resources to mitigating climate change and ecological devastation.
The Climate & Ecological Crisis
The world has ten years to make radical changes to the global economy and its relation to
fossil fuel production and consumption or the planet will be uninhabitable by the end of the
century. Climate Change isn't the issue , it's the overarching context in which we now
exist. Everything we do or don't do over the next ten years will determine whether or not
future generations will inhabit a living planet, or a barren wasteland.
There is simply no way to downplay the urgency of our collective challenge. As author David
Wallace-Wells' notes in his latest book, The Uninhabitable
Earth: Life After Warming , "we could potentially avoid 150 million excess premature
deaths by the end of century from air pollution (the equivalent of 25 Holocausts or twice the
number of deaths from World War II) if we could limit average global warming to 1.5 degrees
Celsius." Right now, we're on track to hit 1.5 degrees Celsius by as early as 2030.
In the future, numbers will matter. The 100,000-240,000 Americans projected to die from
COVID-19 will soon turn into numbers like 1,000,000-5,000,000. What we accept today, we'll be
expected to accept tomorrow.
In some ways, we've already accepted mass death, but our relationship to the living world is
so warped that these numbers don't seem to shake us. Species extinction rates are 100-1,000
times faster than they were, on average, during the evolutionary time-scale of planet Earth.
More than 100 go extinct every single day.
Oceans have been destroyed by toxic materials, dumping, shipping, and large-scale industrial
fishing. Coral reefs are dying. Warming temperatures mean less phytoplankton, which means less
oxygen, which means more carbon dioxide. Some studies suggest that most of the large fish in
the world's oceans will be gone by 2050. Deforestation continues at breakneck speeds, ravaging
ecosystems and leaving nothing behind. Ice caps melt. Prairies destroyed for suburban
developments. Mountains leveled for minerals. Lakes drained for bottled water. Rivers polluted
for industry. Life murdered for profit.
The level of ecological disruption and destruction industrial society has unleashed on the
living world is unparalleled. And time is running out.
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report, Global Warming of 1.5 degree
Celsius , outlines our reality: if we wish to hold the line to 1.5 degrees, we have to cut
emissions by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. Then, we have to reach net-zero around 2050.
That's to avoid the 250 million deaths Wallace-Wells mentioned. So far, none of that is
happening. In fact, we're moving in the opposite direction as global emissions rise each
year.
If we continue at current rates of emission, global temperature could rise by 7 degrees
Celsius, and the number of human deaths from pollution could rise to 1-3 billion by 2100.
That's not including deaths due to habitat loss, crop failure, lack of fresh water, lack of
medical care, lack of housing, rising sea levels, lack of employment, addiction, suicide,
unbearable temperatures, failing governments, collapsing economies, and everything that comes
with those cascading crises: tribal war, banditry, barbarism, and eventually, genocide.
The Totality of Our Crisis
Without question, the stakes couldn't be higher. In many ways, the COVID-19 pandemic and
ensuing economic depression is a dress rehearsal for the future. From here on out, each crisis
will be more pronounced and severe than the last. The new normal is cascading and multilayered
crises all playing out at the same time. How we collectively respond to this crisis will
determine how we respond to the impending large-scale crises of the future, not the least of
which being Climate Change. So far, we're failing miserably.
If the United States can't handle a small-scale pandemic and virus that's moderately deadly,
though admittedly quite disruptive, how can we expect the government to cope with tens of
millions of climate refugees fleeing their homes in the coming decades, while seeking housing,
employment, and safety in cities and counties already strapped for resources?
If capitalists already are taking advantage of this pandemic, netting trillions of dollars
from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury, while simultaneously jacking up the price of
medical equipment and charging poor victims exorbitant amounts of money for health insurance,
needed medicine, and hospital treatment, how can we expect them to behave in the context of
rapid ecological collapse?
If the state is incapable of providing even menial assistance to poor and working class
Americans during the worst pandemic in over 100 years, how can we expect the state to behave in
the context of cascading and multilayered crises unfolding at a rapid pace over a short period
of time, crises that will undoubtedly require massive state intervention in the economy?
Unfortunately, we know the answers to these questions, but only if most poor and working
class people remain unorganized or unwilling to fight back.
Let's remember, all of this takes place within a context of many unnamed crises, many of
which weren't mentioned in this essay. Some of those include gun culture/NRA (weapons sales are
at all-time highs since the pandemic started), police militarism, the prison-industrial complex
(already being used to manufacture surgical masks, while prisoners remain trapped in COVID-19
incubators), patriarchy (domestic violence calls have skyrocketed during the pandemic),
homelessness (500,000 Americans can't 'stay at home'), systemic racism (already, statistics
show that black people are disproportionately impacted by and suffering the worst effects of
COVID-19), housing (Americans already spend a insane amounts of their income toward
rent/mortgage payments -- those problems have only accelerated during the pandemic), childcare
(cash-strapped families and single parents choosing between safety and work), and the list goes
on, and on.
Every single aspect of our society is under extreme stress. Even the most passive
populations can only take so much. Human beings can only take so much. The living world can
only take so much. Eventually, things will explode.
The question is: how? Will poor and working class Americans turn that despair and cynicism
into a righteous anger and rage? And if so, who will that anger and rage be directed toward?
Each other? Or the powerful elites?
The current social context in the U.S. and across the globe is ripe for radical political
change, but that change doesn't necessarily have to be progressive in nature. It could also be
reactionary and fueled by religious extremism, xenophobia, racism, and tribalism. That's up to
us. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Vincent Emanuele
Vincent Emanuele writes for teleSUR English and lives in Michigan City, Indiana. He can
be reached at [email protected]
"... The more I watch these moves by Pompeo the more sympathetic I become to the most sinister theories about COVID-19, its origins and its launch around the world. Read Pepe Escobar's latest to get an idea of how dark and twisted this tale could be . ..."
There are few things in this life that make me more sick to my stomach than watching
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talking. He truly is one of the evilest men I've ever had the
displeasure of covering.
Into the insanity of the over-reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak, Pompeo wasted no time
ramping up sanctions on firms doing any business with Iran, one of the countries worse-hit by
this virus to date.
It's a seemingly endless refrain, everyday,
more sanctions on Chinese, Swiss and South African firms for having the temerity in these
deflating times to buy oil from someone Pompeo and his gang of heartless psychopaths disapprove
of.
This goes far beyond just the oil industry. Even though I'm well aware that Russia's
crashing the price of oil was itself a hybrid war attack on US capital markets. One that has
had, to date, devastating effect.
While Pompeo mouths the words publicly that humanitarian aid is exempted from sanctions on
Iran, the US is pursuing immense
pressure on companies to not do so anyway while the State Dept. bureaucracy takes its sweet
time processing waiver applications.
Pompeo and his ilk only think in terms of civilizational warfare. They have become so
subsumed by their big war for the moral high ground to prove American exceptionalism that they
have lost any shred of humanity they may have ever had.
Because for Pompeo in times like these to stick to his talking points and for his office to
continue excising Iran from the global economy when we're supposed to be coming together to
fight a global pandemic is the height of soullessness.
And it speaks to the much bigger problem that infects all of our political thinking. There
comes a moment when politics and gaining political advantage have to take a back seat to doing
the right thing.
I've actually seen moments of that impulse from the Democratic leadership in the US Will
wonders never cease?!
Thinking only in Manichean terms of good vs. evil and dehumanizing your opponents is
actually costlier than reversing course right now. Because honey is always better at attracting
flies than vinegar.
But, unfortunately, that is not the character of the Trump administration.
It can only think in terms of direct leverage and opportunity to hold onto what they think
they've achieved. So, until President Trump is no longer consumed with coordinating efforts to
control COVID-19 Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper are in charge of foreign policy.
They will continue the playbook that has been well established.
Maximum pressure on Iran, hurt China any way they can, hold onto what they have in Syria,
stay in Iraq.
To that end Iraqi President Barham Salei nominated Pompeo's best choice to replace Prime
Minister Adil Abdel Mahdi to throw Iraq's future into complete turmoil. According to Elijah
Magnier,
Adnan al-Zarfi is a US asset through and through .
And this looks like Pompeo's Hail Mary to retain US legal presence in Iraq after the Iraqi
parliament adopted a measure to demand withdrawal of US troops from the country. Airstrikes
against US bases in Iraq continue on a near daily basis and there have been reports of US base
closures and redeployments at the same time.
This move looks like desperation by Pompeo et.al. to finally separate the Hashd al-Shaabi
from Iraq's official military. So that airstrikes against them can be carried out under the
definition of 'fighting Iranian terrorism.'
As Magnier points out in the article above if al-Zarfi puts a government together the war in
Iraq will expand just as the US is losing further control in Syria after Turkish President
Erdogan's disastrous attempt to remake the front in Idlib. That ended with his effective
surrender to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It is sad that, to me, I see no reason to doubt Pompeo and his ilk in the US government
wouldn't do something like that to spark political and social upheaval in those places most
targeted by US hybrid war tactics.
But, at the same time, I can see the other side of it, a vicious strike back by China
against its tormentors. And China's government does itself, in my mind, no favors threatening
to withhold drug precursors and having officials run their mouths giving Americans the excuse
they need to validate Trump and Pompeo's divisive rhetoric.
Remaining on the fence about this issue isn't my normal style. But everyone is dirty here
and the reality may well be this is a natural event terrible people on both sides are
exploiting.
And I can only go by what people do rather than what they say to assess the situation. Trump
tries to buy exclusive right to a potential COVID-19 vaccine from a German firm and his
administration slow-walks aid to Iran.
China sends aid to Iran and Italy by the container full. Is that to salve their conscience
over its initial suppression of information about the virus? Good question. But no one covers
themselves in glory by using the confusion and distraction to attempt further regime change and
step up war-footing during a public health crisis, manufactured or otherwise.
While Pompeo unctuously talks the talk of compassion and charity, he cannot bring himself to
actually walk the walk. Because he is a despicable, bile-filled man of uncommon depravity. His
prosecuting a hybrid war during a public health crisis speaks to no other conclusion about
him.
It's clear to me that nothing has changed at the top of Trump's administration. I expect
COVID-19 will not be a disaster for Trump and the US. It can handle this. But the lack of
humanity shown by its diplomatic corps ensures that in the long run the US will be left to fend
for itself when the next crisis hits.
A group of economists and policy experts on Wednesday called on President Donald Trump to
immediately lift the United States' crippling sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and
other countries, warning that the economic warfare -- in addition to being cruel in itself --
is "feeding the coronavirus epidemic" by hampering nations' capacity to respond.
"This policy is unconscionable and flagrantly against international law. It is imperative
that the U.S. lift these immoral and illegal sanctions to enable Iran and Venezuela to
confront the epidemic as effectively and rapidly as possible," Columbia University professor
Jeffrey Sachs said in a statement just hours after the Trump administration intensified
sanctions against Iran, which has been devastated by COVID-19.
Promising to "smash" Venezuela's government during a "maximum pressure March," Trump has
imposed crushing sanctions that force Venezuela to spend three times as much as
non-sanctioned countries on coronavirus testing kits.
The 2008 crisis put in the spotlight the psychopathic level of greed, vice, apathy and
short-sightedness from those who wanted to play into the City of London and Wall Street casino
houses. Get rich quick and don't care who you screw in the process, after all, at the end of
the day you're either a winner or a loser.
Since the general public tends to consist of decent people, there is a widespread difficulty
in comprehending how entire economies of countries have been hijacked by these piranhas. That
we have hit such a level of crime that even people's hard earned pensions, education,
health-care, housing etc. are all being gambled away LEGALLY.
Looking upon investment bankers today, one is reminded of those sad addicts in the casino
who are ruined and lose everything, except the difference is, they are given the option to sell
their neighbour's family into slavery to pay off their debt.
It is no secret that much of the "finance" that goes through the City of London and Wall
Street is dirty and yet despite this recognition, there appears to be an inability to address
it and that at this point we are told that if we tried to address it by breaking up and
regulating the "Too Big to Fail" banks, then the whole economy would come tumbling down.
That is, the world is so evidently run by criminal activity that at this point we have
become dependent on its dirty money to keep afloat the world economy.
Faced with the onrushing collapse of the financial system, the greatest Ivy League trained
minds of the world have run into a dead end: the bailouts into the banking system that began
this past September have prevented a chain reaction meltdown for a few months, but as the
liquidity runs out so too will the ideas on where the money justifying bank bailouts will come
from.
With these dead ends, we have seen the lightbulb go off in the minds of a large strata of
economists who have been making the case in recent years that valuable revenue can yet be
generated from one more untapped stream: the decriminalisation and legalisation of vice.
Hell, the major banks have already been doing this covertly as a matter of practice for
generations so why not just come out of the closet and make it official? This is where the
money is at. This is where the job market is at. So let us not "bite the hand that feeds
us"!
But is this truly the case? Is there really no qualitative difference how the
money is generated and how it is spent as long as there is an adequate money flow?
Well it is never a good sign when beside the richest you can also find the poorest just a
stone's throw away. And right beside the largest financial center in the world, the City of
London, there lies the poorest borough in all of London: Tower Hamlets with a 39% poverty
rate and anaverage family income amounting to less than£ 13,
000/year .
A City within a City
" Hell is a city much like London "
– Percy Bysshe Shelley
Although Wall Street has contributed greatly to this sad situation, this banking hub of
America is best understood as the spawn of the City of London.
The City of London is over 800 years old, it is arguably older than England herself, a nd
for over 400 years it has been the financial center of the world.
During the medieval period the City of London, otherwise known as the Square Mile or simply
the City, was divided into 25 ancient wards headed each by an alderman. This continues
today . In addition, there existed the ominously titled City of London Corporation, or
simply the Corporation, which is the municipal governing body of the City. This also still
continues today .
Though the Corporation's origins cannot be specifically dated, since there was never a
"surviving" charter found establishing its "legal" basis, it has kept its functions to this day
based on the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta is a charter of rights agreed to by King John in
1215, which states that " the City of London shall have/enjoy its ancient liberties ".
In other words, the legal function of the Corporation has never been questioned, reviewed,
re-evaluated EVER but rather it has been left to legally function as in accordance with their
"ancient liberties", which is a very grey description of function if you ask me. In other
words, they are free to do as they deem fit.
And it gets worst. The Corporation is not actually under the jurisdiction of the British
government. That is, the British government presently does not have the authority to undermine
how the Corporation of the City chooses to govern the largest financial center in the
world . The City has a separate voting system that allows for, well, corporations to vote
in how their separate "government" should run. It also has its own private police force and
system of private courts.
The Corporation is not just limited to functioning within the City. The City Remembrancer,
which sounds more like a warped version of the ghost of Christmas past, has the role of acting
as a channel of communication between the Corporation and the Sovereign (the Queen), the Royal
Household and Parliament. The Remembrancer thus acts as a "reminder", some would even say
"enforcer", of the will of the Corporation. This position has been held by Paul Double since
2003, it is not clear who bestows this non-elected position.
Mr. Double has the right to act as an official lobbyist in the House of Commons, and sits to
the right of the Speaker's chair, with the purpose of scrutinising and influencing any
legislation he deems affects the interests of the Corporation. He also appears to have the
right to review any piece of legislation as it is being drafted and can even comment on it
affecting its final outcome. He is the only non-elected person allowed into the House of
Commons.
"The City is the only area in the country in which the number of workers significantly
outnumbers the residents and therefore, to be truly representative of its population, offers a
vote to City organisations so they can have their say on the way the City is run."
However, the workers have absolutely no say. The City's organisations they work for have
a certain size vote based on the number of workers they employ, but they do not consult these
workers, and many of them are not even aware that such elections take place.
If you feel like you have just walked through Alice's Looking Glass, you're not alone,
but what appears to be an absurd level of madness is what has been running the largest
financial center in the world since the 1600s, under the machinations of the British
Empire.
Therefore the question is, if the City of London has kept its "ancient liberties" and has
upheld its global financial power, is the British Empire truly gone?
Offshore Banking: Adam Smith's Invisible Hand?
Contrary to popular naïve belief, the empire on which the sun never sets (some say "
because God wouldn't trust them in the dark ")
never went away .
After WWII, colonisation was meant to be done away with, and many thought, so too with the
British Empire. Countries were reclaiming their sovereignty, governments were being set up by
the people, the system of looting and pillaging had come to an end.
It is a nice story, but could not be further from the truth.
In the 1950s, to "adapt" to the changing global financial climate, the City of London set up
what are called "secrecy jurisdictions". These were to operate within the last remnants of
Britain's small territories/colonies. Of Britain's 14 oversea territories, 7 are bona fide tax
havens or "secrecy jurisdictions". A separate international financial market was also created
to facilitate the flow of this offshore money, the Eurodollar market. Since this market has its
banks outside of the UK and U.S., they are not under the jurisdiction of either country.
By 1997, nearly 90% of all international loans were made through this market.
What is often misunderstood is that the City of London's offshore finances are not contained
in a system of banking secrecy but rather of trusts. The difference being that a trust
ultimately plays with the concept of ownership. The idea is that you hand over your assets to a
trustee and at that point, legally those assets are no longer yours anymore and you are not
responsible for accounting for them. Your connection to said assets is completely hidden.
In addition, within Britain's offshore jurisdictions, there is no qualification required for
who can become a trustee: anyone can set up a trust and anyone can become a trustee. There is
also no registry of trusts in these territories. Thus, the only ones who know about this
arrangement are the trustee and the settler.
John Christensen, an investigative economist, estimates that this capital that legally
belongs to nobody could amount to as high as $50 trillion within these British territories.
Not only is this not being taxed, but a significant portion of it has been stolen from sectors
of the real economy.
So how does this affect "formerly" colonised countries?
There lies the rub for most developing nations. According to John Christensen, the combined
external debts of Sub-Saharan African countries was $177 billion in 2008. However, the wealth
that these countries' elites moved offshore, between 1970-2008, is estimated at $944 billion,
5X their foreign debt. This is not only dirty money, this is also STOLEN money from the
resources and productivity of these economies. Thus, as Christensen states, "Far from being a
net debtor to the world, Sub-Saharan Africa is a net creditor" to offshore finance.
Put in this context, the so-called "backwardness" of Africa is not due to its incapability
to produce, but rather that it has been experiencing uninterrupted looting since these regions
were first colonised.
These African countries then need to borrow money, which is happily given to them at high
interest rates, and accrues a level of debt that could never be repaid. These countries are
thus looted twice over, leaving no money left to invest in their future, let alone to
put food on the table.
Offshore havens are what make this sort of activity "legal" and rampant.
And it doesn't stop there. Worldwide, it is estimated that developing countries lose $1
trillion every year in capital flight and tax evasion. Most of this wealth goes back into the
UK and U.S. through these offshore havens, and allows their currencies to stay strong whilst
developing nations' currencies are kept weak.
However, developing nations are not the only ones to have suffered from this system of
looting. The very economies of the UK and U.S. have also been gutted. In the 1960s and onward,
the UK and U.S., to compensate for the increase in money flow out of their countries decided
that it was a good idea to open their domestic markets to the trillions of dollars passing
through its offshore havens.
However, such banks are not interested in putting their money into industry and
manufacturing, they put their money into real estate speculation, financial speculation and
foreign currency trade. And thus the financialization of British and American economies
resulted, and the real jobs coming from the real economy decreased or disappeared.
Although many economists try to claim differently, the desperation has boiled over and
movements like the yellow vests are reflections of the true consequences of these economic
policies.
We have reached a point now where every western first world country is struggling with a
much higher unemployment rate and a lower standard of living than 40 years ago. Along with
increased poverty has followed increased drug use, increased suicide and increased crime.
A Stable Economy based on Freedom or Slavery?
According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) report in
2017 , the UK has by far the highest rate of drug overdose in all of Europe at 31% followed
by Germany at 15%. That is, the UK consists of 1/3 drug overdoses that occur in all of
Europe.
The average family income in the UK is presently £28, 400. The poverty rate within the
UK is ~20%.
The average family income of what was once the epicentre of world industrialisation,
Detroit, has an average family income of $26, 249. The poverty rate of Detroit is ~34.5%.
What is the solution?
Reverse Margaret Thatcher's 1986 Big Bang deregulation of the banking system that destroyed
the separation of commercial banking, investment banking, trusts and insurance for starters. A
similar restoration of Glass-Steagall in the USA should follow suit, not only to break up the
"Too Big to Fail" banking system but to restore the authority of nation states over private
finance once more. IF these emergency measures were done before the markets collapse (and they
will collapse), then the industrial-infrastructure revival throughout trans-Atlantic nations
can still occur.
Let us end here by hearkening to the words of Clement Attlee, UK Prime Minister from
1945-1951:
" Over and over again we have seen that there is another power than that which has its
seat at Westminster. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial
interests, is able to assert itself against the government of the country. Those who control
money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which is being decided by the
people. "
Neoliberalism destroys solidarity; as the result it destroys both the society and individuals
Notable quotes:
"... Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has become normative. If you're reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others. ..."
"... On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli and challenges. In practice, this leads to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won't be you who has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy checklist by Robert Hare , the best-known specialist on psychopathy today. ..."
"... the financial crisis illustrated at a macro-social level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes an expensive luxury and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more profit from the situation than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation. ..."
"... Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other. ..."
"... Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms ..."
"... More important, though, is the serious damage to people's self-respect. Self-respect largely depends on the recognition that we receive from the other, as thinkers from Hegel to Lacan have shown. Sennett comes to a similar conclusion when he sees the main question for employees these days as being "Who needs me?" For a growing group of people, the answer is: no one. ..."
"... A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal. ..."
"... the paradox of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." ..."
An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities
'We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to choose
outside the success narrative is limited.'
We tend to perceive our identities as stable and largely separate from outside forces. But over decades of research and therapeutic
practice, I have become convinced that economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our personalities.
Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has
become normative. If you're reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain
personality traits and penalises others.
There are certain ideal characteristics needed to make a career today. The first is articulateness, the aim being to win over
as many people as possible. Contact can be superficial, but since this applies to most human interaction nowadays, this won't really
be noticed.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a lot of people, you've got plenty of experience
under your belt and you recently completed a major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact
that they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel little guilt. That's why
you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli and challenges. In practice, this leads
to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won't be you who has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy
checklist by Robert Hare , the best-known specialist on psychopathy today.
This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes. Nevertheless, the financial crisis illustrated at a macro-social
level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes
an expensive luxury and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more profit from the situation
than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent
venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging
from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other.
Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms.
This results in what the sociologist
Richard Sennett has aptly described
as the "infantilisation of the workers". Adults display childish outbursts of temper and are jealous about trivialities ("She got
a new office chair and I didn't"), tell white lies, resort to deceit, delight in the downfall of others and cherish petty feelings
of revenge. This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees
as adults.
More important, though, is the serious damage to people's self-respect. Self-respect largely depends on the recognition that we
receive from the other, as thinkers from Hegel
to Lacan have shown. Sennett comes to a similar conclusion
when he sees the main question for employees these days as being "Who needs me?" For a growing group of people, the answer is: no
one.
Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the while reinforcing privilege and
putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted citizens. An increasing number of people fail, feeling humiliated,
guilty and ashamed. We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to
choose outside the success narrative is limited. Furthermore, those who fail are deemed to be losers or scroungers, taking advantage
of our social security system.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents, meaning responsibility lies
entirely with the individual and authorities should give people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal. For those who believe
in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if
they appear to promise freedom. Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as having in
the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the
paradox of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the sense
that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like.
We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet,
on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There
are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, "make" something of ourselves. You don't
need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person
with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure
success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a
master's degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet our norms and values make up an integral
and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be lost, only changed. And that is precisely what has happened: a changed economy
reflects changed ethics and brings about changed identity. The current economic system is bringing out the worst in us.
Under neoliberalism inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve: Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of
human relations and redefines citizens as consumers
Notable quotes:
"... Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is? ..."
"... Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness , the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump . ..."
"... Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve. ..."
"... Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. ..."
"... We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances. ..."
"... Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers. ..."
"... Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. ..."
"... It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative' ..."
"... Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating " investor-state dispute settlement ": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes , protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre. ..."
"... Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one ..."
"... Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead created one. ..."
"... When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel . ..."
"... Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world's richest man. ..."
"... Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can't Afford the Rich , has had a similar impact. "Like rent," he argues, "interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort". ..."
"... Chris Hedges remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment". When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation . To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant. ..."
"... Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities. ..."
"... The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch , two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement . We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that "in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised". ..."
"... The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years. ..."
"... What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it's not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century. ..."
Financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the rise of Donald Trump –
neoliberalism has played its part in them all. Why has the left failed to come up with an
alternative? @GeorgeMonbiot
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology
that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be
rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to
define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has
played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8,
the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a
glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the
epidemic of loneliness , the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump . But we respond to these
crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had
– a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?
Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that
everyone gets what they deserve.
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even
recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian
faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory of evolution.
But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of
power.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of
human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best
exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It
maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by
planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty.
Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation
of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market
distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality
is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to
enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally
corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich
persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages
– such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The
poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their
circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's
because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card
is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a
school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition,
those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.
Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What
About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance
anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology
has been most rigorously applied, is
the loneliness capital of Europe . We are all neoliberals now.
***
The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938.
Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and
Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin
Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations
of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.
In The Road to Serfdom , published in 1944, Hayek argued
that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian
control. Like Mises's book Bureaucracy , The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It
came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to
free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation
that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by
millionaires and their foundations.
As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view
that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way
– among American apostles such as Milton Friedman
– to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.
Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost
its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe
himself as a neoliberal . But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still,
even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not
replaced by any common alternative.
At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at
the margins. The postwar consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes 's economic
prescriptions were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals
in the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments sought social
outcomes without embarrassment, developing new public services and safety nets.
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and
economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the
mainstream. As Friedman remarked, "when the time came that you had to change ... there was an
alternative ready there to be picked up". With the help of sympathetic journalists and
political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary
policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter's administration in the US and Jim Callaghan's government
in Britain.
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have
been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'
After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of
the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions,
deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF,
the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies
were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most
remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the
Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, "it is hard to think of another utopia to have
been as fully realised."
***
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom
should have been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative". But, as Hayek remarked on a
visit to Pinochet's Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was
comprehensively applied – "my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship
rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism". The freedom that
neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to
mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the
freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the
freedom to poison rivers , endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design
exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth
that lifts people out of poverty.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest Naomi Klein documented that neoliberals advocated the use of crises to
impose unpopular policies while people were distracted. Photograph: Anya Chibis/The
Guardian
As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine ,
neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were
distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet's coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane
Katrina, which Friedman described as "an opportunity to radically reform the educational
system" in New Orleans
.
Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are
imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating "
investor-state dispute settlement ": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for
the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict
sales of cigarettes ,
protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical
firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is
reduced to theatre.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it
rapidly became one
Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition
relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers
and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment
and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von
Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead
created one.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it
rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980
in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich.
Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose
rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents,
privatisation and deregulation.
The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as
energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up
tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government,
for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a
train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel,
wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that
they have you over a barrel .
In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all phone services
and soon became the world's richest man. Photograph: Henry Romero/Reuters
Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised
services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India,
oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico,
Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon
became the world's richest man.
Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can't Afford the
Rich , has had a similar impact. "Like rent," he argues, "interest is ... unearned
income that accrues without any effort". As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer,
the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments,
overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the
withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to
student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.
Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by
a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy:
from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their
money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned
income has been supplanted by unearned income.
Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not
only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering
public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the
Land , Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which
means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the
risk.
The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes.
Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise
remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and
re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public
sector.
Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the
economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced,
our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead,
neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to
spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally
distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and
former left adopt
similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of
people have been shed from politics.
Chris Hedges
remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the
politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to
play in the political establishment". When political debate no longer speaks to us, people
become responsive instead
to slogans, symbols and sensation . To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and
arguments appear irrelevant.
Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between
people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only
remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely
to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of
public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey
them".
***
Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the
zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of
anonymities.
The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by
invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them.
We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media
against the further regulation of the tobacco industry,
has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that
Charles and David
Koch , two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the
Tea
Party movement . We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks,
noted that "in order
to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be
widely advertised".
The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had
inherited their money. Today, the relationship has been reversed
The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they
elucidate. "The market" sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like
gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What "the market
wants" tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. "Investment", as Sayer notes,
means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful
activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest,
dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities "camouflages the
sources of wealth", leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.
A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had
inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as
rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style
themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.
These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and
placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for
whom they toil ; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so
complex that even the
police cannot discover the beneficial owners ; the tax arrangements that bamboozle
governments; the financial products no one understands.
The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are
influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some
justice – that it is used today only pejoratively . But they
offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but
these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there
is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom , Bureaucracy or Friedman's classic
work, Capitalism and Freedom .
***
For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal
project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by
a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and
persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.
Neoliberalism, Locke and the Green party |
Letters Read more
Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left.
When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive
economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s,
there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ...
nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general
framework of economic thought for 80 years.
Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To
propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious
problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not
gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the
environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic
growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental
destruction.
What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is
that it's not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For
Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic
Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the
21st century.
George Monbiot's How Did We Get into This Mess? is
published this month by Verso. To order a copy for £12.99 (RRP £16.99) ) go to
bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online
orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.
"... Corporate capitalism is supranational . It owes no loyalty to any nation-state. It uses the projection of military power by the United States to protect and advance its economic interests but at the same time cannibalizes the U.S., dismantling its democratic institutions, allowing its infrastructure to decay and deindustrializing its factory centers to ship manufacturing abroad to regions where workers are treated as serfs. ..."
"... Resistance to this global cabal of corporate oligarchs must also be supranational. It must build alliances with workers around the globe. It must defy the liberal institutions, including the Democratic Party, which betray workers. It is this betrayal that has given rise to fascist and protofascist movements in Europe and other countries ..."
"... Capitalism, at its core, is about the commodification of human beings and the natural world for exploitation and profit. To increase profit, it constantly seeks to reduce the cost of labor and demolish the regulations and laws that protect the common good. But as capitalism ravages the social fabric, it damages, like any parasite, the host that allows it to exist. It unleashes dark, uncontrollable yearnings among an enraged population that threaten capitalism itself. ..."
"... "We live in a global economy, highly interconnected," North went on. "A globalized process of production, financial system. The ruling class has an international policy. They organize themselves on an international scale. The labor movement has remained organized on a national basis. It has been completely incapable of answering this [ruling-class policy]. Therefore, it falls behind various national protectionist programs. The trade unions support Trump." ..."
"... "How many times can you turn on a mainstream news like CNN and expect to hear the word 'capitalism' discussed? Bernie [Sanders] did one thing. He called himself a democratic socialist , which was a bit transformational simply in terms of rhetoric. He's saying there's something other than capitalism that we ought to be talking about." ..."
"... When feminism was turned into that kind of leaning in, it created an identity politics that legitimizes the very system that needs to be critiqued. The early feminists were overtly socialists. As was [Martin Luther] King. But all that got erased." ..."
"... "The left became a kind of grab bag of discrete, siloed identity movements," Derber said. "This is very connected to moral purity. You're concerned about your advancement within the existing system. You're competing against others within the existing system. Everyone else has privilege. You're just concerned about getting your fair share." ..."
"... "Identity politics is to a large degree a right-wing discourse," Derber said. "It focuses on tribalism tied in modern times to nationalism, which is always militaristic. When you break the left into these siloed identity politics, which are not contextualized, you easily get into this dogmatic fundamentalism. The identity politics of the left reproduces the worse sociopathic features of the system as a whole. It's scary." ..."
There will be no economic or political justice for the poor, people of color, women or
workers within the framework of global, corporate capitalism. Corporate capitalism, which uses
identity politics ,
multiculturalism and racial justice to masquerade as politics, will never halt the rising
social inequality, unchecked militarism, evisceration of civil liberties and omnipotence of the
organs of security and surveillance. Corporate capitalism cannot be reformed, despite its
continually rebranding itself. The longer the self-identified left and liberal class seek to
work within a system that the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls " inverted
totalitarianism ," the more the noose will be tightened around our necks. If we do not rise
up to bring government and financial systems under public control -- which includes
nationalizing banks, the fossil fuel industry and the arms industry -- we will continue to be
victims.
Corporate capitalism is
supranational . It owes no loyalty to any nation-state. It uses the projection of military
power by the United States to protect and advance its economic interests but at the same time
cannibalizes the U.S., dismantling its democratic institutions, allowing its infrastructure to
decay and deindustrializing its factory centers to ship manufacturing abroad to regions where
workers are treated as serfs.
Resistance to this global cabal of corporate oligarchs must also be supranational. It must
build alliances with workers around the globe. It must defy the liberal institutions, including
the Democratic Party, which betray workers. It is this betrayal that has given rise to fascist
and protofascist movements in Europe and other countries. Donald Trump would never have been
elected but for this betrayal. We will build a global movement powerful enough to bring down
corporate capitalism or witness the rise of a new, supranational totalitarianism.
The left, seduced by the culture wars and identity politics, largely ignores the primacy of
capitalism and the class struggle. As long as unregulated capitalism reigns supreme, all
social, economic, cultural and political change will be cosmetic. Capitalism, at its core, is
about the commodification of human
beings and the natural world for exploitation and profit. To increase profit, it constantly
seeks to reduce the cost of labor and demolish the regulations and laws that protect the common
good. But as capitalism ravages the social fabric, it damages, like any parasite, the host that
allows it to exist. It unleashes dark, uncontrollable yearnings among an enraged population
that threaten capitalism itself.
"This is a crisis of global dimensions," David North , the national chairman
of the Socialist Equality Party in the
United States, told me when we spoke in New York. "It is a crisis that dominates every element
of American politics. The response that we're seeing, the astonishing changes in the state of
the government, in the decay of political life, the astonishingly low level of political and
intellectual discourse, is in a certain sense an expression of the bewilderment of the ruling
elite to what it's going through."
"We can expect a monumental explosion of class struggle in the United States," he said. "I
think this country is a social powder keg. There is an anger that exists over working
conditions and social inequality. However [much] they may be confused on many questions,
workers in this country have a deep belief in democratic rights. We totally reject the
narrative that the working class is racist. I think this has been the narrative pushed by the
pseudo-left, middle-class groups who are drunk on identity politics, which have a vested
interest in constantly distracting people from the essential class differences that exist in
the society. Dividing everyone up on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference fails to
address the major problem."
North argues, correctly, that capitalism by its nature lurches from crisis to crisis. This
makes our current predicament similar to past crises.
"All the unanswered questions of the 20th century -- the basic problem of the nation-state
system, the reactionary character of private ownership with the means of production, corporate
power, all of these issues which led to the first and Second world wars -- are with us again,
and add to that fascism," he said.
"We live in a global economy, highly interconnected," North went on. "A globalized process
of production, financial system. The ruling class has an international policy. They organize
themselves on an international scale. The labor movement has remained organized on a national
basis. It has been completely incapable of answering this [ruling-class policy]. Therefore, it
falls behind various national protectionist programs. The trade unions support Trump."
"We don't really have a left because we don't have conversations about capitalism," Derber
said. "How many times can you turn on a mainstream news like CNN and expect to hear the word
'capitalism' discussed? Bernie [Sanders] did one thing. He
called himself a democratic socialist , which was a bit transformational simply in terms of
rhetoric. He's saying there's something other than capitalism that we ought to be talking
about."
"As the [capitalist] system universalizes and becomes more and more intersectional, we need
intersectional resistance," Derber said. "At the end of the 1960s, when I was getting my own
political education, the universalizing dimensions of the left, which was growing in the '60s,
fell apart. The women began to feel their issues were not being addressed. They were treated
badly by white males, student leaders. Blacks, Panthers, began to feel the whites could not
speak for race issues. They developed separate organizations. The upshot was the left lost its
universalizing character. It no longer dealt with the intersection of all these issues within
the context of a militarized, capitalist, hegemonic American empire. It treated politics as
siloed group identity problems. Women had glass ceilings. Same with blacks. Same with
gays."
The loss of this intersectionality was deadly. Instead of focusing on the plight of all of
the oppressed, oppressed groups began to seek representation for their own members within
capitalist structures.
"Let's take a modern version of this," Derber said. " Sheryl Sandberg , the COO of
Facebook, she did a third-wave feminism thing. She said 'lean in.' It captures this identity
politics that has become toxic on the left. What does 'lean in' mean? It means women should
lean in and go as far as they can in the corporation. They should become, as she has, a major,
wealthy executive of a leading corporation. When feminism was turned into that kind of leaning
in, it created an identity politics that legitimizes the very system that needs to be
critiqued. The early feminists were overtly socialists. As was [Martin Luther] King. But all
that got erased."
"The left became a kind of grab bag of discrete, siloed identity movements," Derber
said. "This is very connected to moral purity. You're concerned about your advancement within
the existing system. You're competing against others within the existing system. Everyone else
has privilege. You're just concerned about getting your fair share."
"People in movements are products of the system they're fighting," he continued. "We're all
raised in a capitalistic, individualistic, egoistic culture, so it's not surprising. And it has
to be consciously recognized and struggled against. Everybody in movements has been brought up
in systems they're repulsed by. This has created a structural transformation of the left. The
left offers no broad critique of the political economy of capitalism. It's largely an
identity-politics party. It focuses on reforms for blacks and women and so forth. But it
doesn't offer a contextual analysis within capitalism."
Derber, like North, argues that the left's myopic, siloed politics paved the way for
right-wing, nativist, protofascist movements around the globe as well as the ascendancy of
Trump.
"When you bring politics down to simply about helping your group get a piece of the pie, you
lose that systemic analysis," he said. "You're fragmented. You don't have natural connections
or solidarity with other groups. You don't see the larger systemic context. By saying I want,
as a gay person, to fight in the military, in a funny way you're legitimating the American
empire. If you were living in Nazi Germany, would you say I want the right of a gay person to
fight in combat with the Nazi soldiers?"
"I don't want to say we should eliminate all identity politics," he said. "But any identity
politics has to be done within the framework of understanding the larger political economy.
That's been stripped away and erased. Even on the left, you cannot find a deep conversation
about capitalism and militarized capitalism. It's just been erased. That's why Trump came in.
He unified a kind of very powerful right-wing identity politics built around nationalism,
militarism and the exceptionalism of the American empire."
"Identity politics is to a large degree a right-wing discourse," Derber said. "It focuses on
tribalism tied in modern times to nationalism, which is always militaristic. When you break the
left into these siloed identity politics, which are not contextualized, you easily get into
this dogmatic fundamentalism. The identity politics of the left reproduces the worse
sociopathic features of the system as a whole. It's scary."
"How much of the left," he asked, "is reproducing what we are seeing in the society that
we're fighting?"
Many of us have come across the term "neoliberal," or "neoliberalism" before, but for all
its use, few have ever taken the chance to actually explain what it is. An inadequate popular
definition has allowed the term to be abused and misrepresented in a variety of ways. Despite
these misrepresentations, however, "neoliberalism" is a concept that is very useful for
understanding the world we live in today.
In simple terms, neoliberalism is a broad ideology that became popular in political,
economic, and governmental circles in the 1970's and reached its peak in global popularity in
the 1980's.
Neoliberalism describes the political paradigm we are in right now, the political conditions of
modern society . As the name suggests, it calls for a revitalization of the classical
liberal view of economic policy. It's important to understand that "classical liberal" here
refers to an older understanding of the word liberal than the one it has in modern America- it
is referencing the liberalism of the Enlightenment era, represented by thinkers like Adam Smith
and John Locke, not modern social liberalism as embodied by Barack Obama and much of the rest
of the Democratic Party. In concrete policy terms, neoliberalism means free trade, low taxes,
deregulation, privatization, and balanced budgets.
Neoliberalism emerged as a reaction to welfare state politics and Keynesian economics that
had become popular in the West following the end of World War II.
What is Keynesian Economics? Two major schools of economic thought are Classical
Economics and Keynesian Economics. Adam Smith's (1723-1790) theory of Classical Economics
asserts that the market is a rapidly-adjusting, self-correcting entity. John Maynard Keynes
(1883-1946) believed that Classical Economics was flawed. If classical economics were true,
Keyes asserted, waves of massive unemployment wouldn't exist, as the market would quickly
self-adjust for the downturn. Keynes theorized that during an economic downturn, consumer
demand tended to drop, causing employers to lay off employees, which would then decrease
overall consumer demand, and the cycle would continue. Keynes concluded that in periods of
economic downturn, government could manipulate demand by hiring, directly or through
policy, unemployed workers and break the cycle.
Following a long period of significant prosperity,
the 1970's brought with it a phenomenon known as "stagflation" - simultaneous stagnation
(where worker wages are kept flat) and inflation (where the cost of living rises). Keynesians,
who had been the dominant group in American economics at the time, believed it was impossible
for stagflation to exist for any extended period of time.
As the Keynesians tried to make sense of economic realities of the day, a new wave of
economists began to create other schools of thought. Milton Friedman (known as "the Chicago
School" or "monetarists") made the case not only for a different approach to monetary policy in
order to solve stagflation, but also for the idea that many forms of governmental involvement
in the economy are in fact harmful. Others, like James Buchanan pioneered a field known as
"public choice theory," which made the case to the economics profession that government
bureaucrats acted in personal self-interest, not in the public interest, and thus that policy
prescriptions should be much more cautious in calling for governmental solutions to economic
issues.
Activist Business
At the same time as the intellectual environment began to shift toward the political right
in economics,
the business community also began to be more aggressive in asserting their interests in
politics. This development was prompted in part by soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Lewis
F. Powell, Jr. writing a memo to
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1971, arguing that "the American economic system is under
attack" from progressive critics of big business and that the business community should fight
back. A number of conservative and libertarian think tanks and advocacy organizations were
created and expanded during this period in order to make the intellectual case for "freer"
capitalism, including the Heritage Foundation (1973), the Cato Institute (1974), and the
American Enterprise Institute (founded in 1938 but becoming influential during the
1970′s).
A Radical Message
Combine a turn against government in the field of economics and a growing assertion of
political power by businesses, and throw in increased public skepticism of government after
Vietnam and Watergate, and you have a recipe for fundamental political change. Between the
economic disarray, the public distrust, and both intellectual and financial support for an
alternative to post-war welfare statism, a new ideology became dominant in the political
sphere. This ideology was encapsulated by the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who summed it up
perfectly with his famous quote: "in this current crisis, government is not the solution to the
problem; government is the problem."
Such a claim may sound like standard conservative fare today, but
both Reagan and his message were quite radical at the time, even among Republicans. At the
time of his election, Reagan was seen by some (
including Gerald Ford ) as simply too far right to win. The last (elected) Republican
president before him, Nixon, created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and a number of other progressive
programs. He also called for healthcare reform that could arguably be called
stronger than Obamacare, and
an expansion of welfare , the latter of which was the inspiration for the Earned Income Tax
Credit, passed shortly after he left office. Pieces of Nixon's economic agenda were noticeably
left-wing, so much so that one journalist at the time noted that he left the
Democrats having to resort to "me-tooism."
Importantly, this era also saw the start of the growth in the importance of campaign
donations. Republicans had not only a strong base of think tanks to provide them with a network
of intellectual support, they also had far more money from the corporate interests they were
serving. Congressional Republicans beat their Democratic counterparts in campaign expenditures in every
election year from 1976 to 1992.
Traditionally, Democrats had relied on unions as a critical source of both campaign
donations and organizational support. With union strength declining (a trend the Reagan
administration encouraged through policy), the Democrats were being totally outgunned.
According to Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's book "Winner-Take-All Politics":
Even with the emergence of conservative "Reagan Democrats" during the 1980's, the game had
changed for the Democratic Party. Recognizing this, a number of Democrats (including Bill
Clinton) joined together in a group called the Democratic Leadership Council with the goal of
dragging the party to the right and boosting campaign contributions. They succeeded.
When Clinton eventually won the presidency, he cemented neoliberalism as the law of the
land by making it clear that the Democrats would not challenge the new fundamental doctrine
of limited government involvement in many parts of the economy, and as a result made the
Democrats politically competitive again. (Both the previously mentioned "Winner-Take-All
Politics" and Thomas Ferguson and Joel Roger's "Right Turn" go more into detail on this issue,
and on neoliberalism more generally).
Instead of challenging the entirety of Reagan's assertion of government-as-problem, Clinton
espoused a "third way" ideology: in his second inauguration, he
said that "Government is not the problem, and Government is not the solution. We -- the
American people -- we are the solution." Though the Clinton White House at times backed
left-liberal policies like mild tax hikes on the wealthy, the Children's Health Insurance
Program, and the Family Medical Leave Act, it also continued the neoliberal march of rolling
back progressive achievements through the deregulation of Wall Street (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act of 1999, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, etc.), conservative welfare
reform in 1996, NAFTA, and the gutting of public housing
.
A One-Party System
Clinton himself was aware of the way that American politics was moving to the right, and he
was sometimes frustrated with it. Allegedly, he once entered a meeting in the Oval Office
complaining : "Where are all the Democrats? I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower
Republicans. We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We
stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?"
Neoliberalism within the Democratic Party looks less like a proposal to privatize or abolish
Social Security as much as it does a commitment to benefit-cutting "entitlement reform." It can
be seen both in language (the constant discussion of education as an "investment" in "skills"
necessary for "improving the workforce," instead of a guaranteed right for all citizens) and in
policy (proposing tax cuts for the middle class instead of social spending even when taxes are
at some of their
lowest rates in decades ; compromis[ing] in advance
on major policy proposals like the 2009 stimulus; advocating piecemeal technocratic reforms to
healthcare and finance instead of deeper, fundamental reform; etc.).
With their opponents on the defensive and partially compliant with their agenda, the
Republicans continued to push further right under the leadership of Newt Gingrich and his
"Contract with America." The Democrats started to dig their heels in and push back a little
for the first time during the later part of the George W. Bush administration as his (and the
wars') approval ratings sank, and they now seem to have more or less stabilized. An
increasingly loud progressive coalition of activists and advocates continues to push for ideas
like single-payer healthcare, often dismissed as radical despite both being an international
norm and the
explicit goal of many mainstream Democratic politicians before neoliberalism's rise. The
Democratic party establishment, on the contrary, is largely fine holding on to ideological
territory that is, in certain areas, to the right of where it was several decades ago.
With the establishment of both major political parties accepting neoliberal ideology, it
became default wisdom among economic, political, and media elites. Because the most powerful
class of America accepted it as fact, it was instilled into the American consciousness as
"common sense" that can't be seriously challenged. Ideas in direct opposition to neoliberalism
were largely marginalized, and as a result, much of our modern debate now takes place within
its bounds. Today, though, this marginalization is rapidly disappearing.
Today, we are witnessing the collapse of neoliberalism's "common sense" status. Republican
elites took neoliberalism being one of their root organizing principles for granted while
running campaigns using dog-whistle racism, never realizing that they were attracting a base of
voters who hated immigrants a lot more than they hated regulation. The Republicans have drifted
so far to the right that unabashed nationalists like Trump can now take the lead of the party,
even as he espouses racist xenophobia-inspired protectionism that are in conflict with the
neoliberal ideals of the party's business wing.
Even during their neoliberalization, the Democrats always had a left-wing occupied by social
democrats. Today they largely occupy the Congressional Progressive Caucus. They were empowered
by both opposition to the Iraq War late in the Bush era and the subsequent economic crash that
occurred as a result of neoliberal deregulation of the finance sector. Obama ran as a
semi-progressive but governed as a standard Democrat, leaving progressive disappointment and
frustration to rise to the surface again once a primary was held to determine who would be the
Democratic candidate after Obama: thus, the Bernie phenomenon.
Globalism &
Neoliberalism
It seems as though the extinction of neoliberalism is embedded in the formula of
neoliberalism itself.
Neoliberalism and accompanying globalization have resulted in inequality and poverty for
significant portions of the population, leaving many people economically impoverished and
politically alienated. This prompts an inevitable political reaction, angry and populist in
nature. The center-left (ex. Hillary Clinton) and center-right (ex. Jeb Bush) sing the praises
of neoliberal globalization, while the left (ex. Bernie Sanders) vigorously attacks the
"neoliberal" part of it, and the far-right (ex. Donald Trump) vigorously attack the
"globalization" part of it. Today, progressives dislike neoliberalism, but also believe that
the far-right's disdain for all forms of globalization is a distraction and misidentification
of the root issue, using foreigners and people of color as scapegoats.
The problem is not globalization, but globalization implemented in such a way so as to benefit
the wealthy and powerful.
Neoliberalism is a powerful ideology and way of looking at the world. The neoliberal views
most government involvement in the economy as harmful, and seeks to leave social problems to be
solved by private enterprise and markets whenever possible. This is an idea that, over the last
several decades, has become widely accepted to varying degrees by people across the political
spectrum, and as such has been embedded into modern government and public policy.
A number of other industrialized countries have undergone neoliberalization on roughly the
same time frame as the US, and are now experiencing similar backlashes: the U.K.,
neoliberalized under Margaret Thatcher and others, now has UKIP on its right and Jeremy Corbyn
and social democratic Scottish nationalists on its left. France has witnessed the rise of not
only the National Front on its far-right, but also the rise of populist socialists like
Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Germany has the AfD and Pegida on its right and Die Linke on its
left. New Zealand has New Zealand First. Sweden has the Sweden Democrats. Spain has Podemos.
Additionally, backlash against "Washington Consensus" neoliberalism in Latin America
contributed to a revitalization of left-populism in many countries. Though there are some
nations that have experienced some form of neoliberalism without such political effects, a
definite connection between neoliberalism and the emergence of anti-neoliberal populism
certainly seems to exist.
re ... Your house foreclosed upon by shady bank: naked capitalism, .0001% paid on interest
savings: naked capitalism, poor wages: naked capitalism, dangerous workplace: naked
capitalism, etc. ...
"naked capitalism" is not a clear description. Consider using "predatory capitalism",
which clearly describes what it is.
Here's the Wiki dictionary definition:
Predatory--
1. relating to or denoting an animal or animals preying naturally on others.
synonyms: predacious, carnivorous, hunting, raptorial, ravening;
Example: "predatory birds".
2. seeking to exploit or oppress others.
synonyms: exploitative, wolfish, rapacious, greedy, acquisitive, avaricious
Example: "I could see a predatory gleam in his eyes"
Note where the word comes from:
The Latin "praedator", in English meaning "plunderer".
And "plunderer" helps the reader understand and perhaps recognize what is happening.
I've heard and read about a claim that Trump actually called PM Abdul Mahdi and demanded that
Iraq hand over 50 percent of their proceeds from selling their oil to the USA, and then
threatened Mahdi that he would unleash false flag attacks against the Iraqi government and
its people if he did not submit to this act of Mafia-like criminal extortion. Mahdi told
Trump to kiss his buttocks and that he wasn't going to turn over half of the profits from oil
sales.
This makes Trump sound exactly like a criminal mob boss, especially in light of the fact
that the USA is now the world's #1 exporter of oil – a fact that the arrogant Orange
Man has even boasted about in recent months. Can anyone confirm that this claim is accurate?
If so, then the more I learn about Trump the more sleazy and gangster like he becomes.
I mean, think about it. Bush and Cheney and mostly jewish neocons LIED us into Iraq based
on bald faced lies, fabricated evidence, and exaggerated threats that they KNEW did not
exist. We destroyed that country, captured and killed it's leader – who used to be a
big buddy of the USA when we had a use for him – and Bush's crime gang killed close to
2 million innocent Iraqis and wrecked their economy and destroyed their infrastructure. And,
now, after all that death, destruction and carnage – which Trump claimed in 2016 he did
not approve of – but, now that Trump is sitting on the throne in the Oval office
– he has the audacity and the gall to demand that Iraq owes the USA 50 percent of their
oil profits? And, that he won't honor and respect their demand to pull our troops out of
their sovereign nation unless they PAY US back for the gigantic waste of tax payers money
that was spent building permanent bases inside their country?
Not one Iraqi politician voted for the appropriations bill that financed the construction
of those military bases; that was our mistake, the mistake of our US congress whichever POTUS
signed off on it.
...Trump learned the power of the purse on the streets of NYC, he survived by playing ball
with the Jewish and Italian Mafia. Now he has become the ultimate Godfather, and the world
must listen to his commands. Watch and listen as the powerful and mighty crumble under US
Hegemony.
Right TG, traditionally, as you said up there first, and legally too, under the supreme law
of the land. Economic sanctions are subject to the same UNSC supervision as forcible
coercion.
UN Charter Article 41: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the
use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon
the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or
partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio,
and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
US "sanctions" require UNSC authorization. Unilateral sanctions are nothing but illegal
coercive intervention, as the non-intervention principle is customary international law,
which is US federal common law.
The G-192, that is, the entire world, has affirmed this law. That's why the US is trying
to defund UNCTAD as redundant with the WTO (UNCTAD is the G-192's primary forum.) In any
case, now that the SCO is in a position to enforce this law at gunpoint with its
overwhelmingly superior missile technology, the US is going to get stomped and tased until it
complies and stops resisting.
In 2018 total US petroleum production was under 18 million barrels per day, total
consumption north of 20 mmb/d. What does it matter if the US exports a bunch of super light
fracked product the US itself can't refine if it turns around and imports it all back in
again and then some.
The myths we tell ourselves, like a roaring economy that nevertheless generates a $1
trillion annual deficit, will someday come back to bite us. Denying reality is not a winning
game plan for the long run.
I long tought that US foreign policies were mainly zionist agenda – driven, but the
Venezuelan affair and the statements of Trump himself about the syrian oil (ta be "kept"
(stolen)) make you think twice.
Oil seems to be at least very important even if it's not the main cause of middle east
problems
So maybe it's the cause of illegal and cruel sanctions against Iran : Get rid of
competitor to sell shale oil everywhere ?( think also of Norstream 2 here)
Watch out US of A. in the end there is something sometimes referred to as the oil's
curse . some poor black Nigerians call oil "the shit of the devil", because it's such a
problem – related asset Have you heard of it ? You get your revenues from oil easily,
so you don't have to make effort by yourself. And in the end you don't keep pace with China
on 5G ? Education fails ? Hmm
Becommig a primary sector extraction nation sad destiny indeed, like africans growing cafe,
bananas and cacao for others. Not to mention environmental problems
What has happened to the superb Nation that send the first man on the moon and invented
modern computers ?
Disapointment
Money for space or money for war following the Zio. Choose Uncle Sam !
Difficult to have both
Everyone seems to forget how we avoided war with Syria all those years ago It was when John
Kerry of all people gaffed, and said "if Assad gives up all his chemical weapons." That was
in response to a reporter who asked "is there anything that can stop the war?" A intrepid
Russian ambassador chimed in loud enough for the press core to hear his "OK" and history was
averted. Thinking restricting the power of the President will stop brown children from dying
at the hands of insane US foreign policy is a cope. "Bi-partisanship" voted to keep troops in
Syria, that was only a few months ago, have you already forgotten? Dubya started the drone
program, and the magical African everyone fawns over, literally doubled the remote controlled
death. We are way past pretending any elected official from either side is actually against
more ME war, or even that one side is worse than the other.
The problem with the supporters Trump has left is they so desperately want to believe in
something bigger than themselves. They have been fed propaganda for their whole lives, and as
a result can only see the world in either "this is good" or "this is bad." The problem with
the opposition is that they are insane. and will say or do anything regardless of the truth.
Trump could be impeached for assassinating Sulimani, yet they keep proceeding with fake and
retarded nonsense. Just like keeping troops in Syria, even the most insane rabid leftoids are
just fine with US imperialism, so long as it's promoting Starbucks, Marvel and homosex, just
like we see with support for HK. That is foreign meddling no matter how you try to justify
it, and it's not even any different messaging than the hoax "bring
democracyhumanrightsfreedom TM to the poor Arabs" justification that was used in Iraq. They
don't even have to come up with a new play to run, it's really quite incredible.
@OverCommenter
A lot of right-wingers also see military action in the Middle East as a way for America to
flex its muscles and bomb some Arabs. It also serves to justify the insane defence budget
that could be used to build a wall and increase funding to ICE.
US politics has become incredibly bi-partisan, criticising Trump will get you branded a
'Leftist' in many circles. This extreme bipartisanship started with the Obama birth
certificate nonsense which was being peddled by Jews like Orly Taitz, Philip J. Berg, Robert
L. Shulz, Larry Klayman and Breitbart news – most likely because Obama was pursuing the
JCPOA and not going hard enough on Iran – and continued with the Trump Russian agent
angle.
Now many Americans cannot really think critically, they stick to their side like a fan
sticks to their sports team.
The first person I ever heard say sanctions are acts of war was Ron Paul. The repulsive
Madeleine Albright infamously said the deaths of 500,000 Iranian children due to US sanctions
was worth it. She ought to be tried as a war criminal. Ron Paul ought to be Secretary of
State.
I've heard and read about a claim that Trump actually called PM Abdul Mahdi and demanded that
Iraq hand over 50 percent of their proceeds from selling their oil to the USA, and then
threatened Mahdi that he would unleash false flag attacks against the Iraqi government and
its people if he did not submit to this act of Mafia-like criminal extortion. Mahdi told
Trump to kiss his buttocks and that he wasn't going to turn over half of the profits from oil
sales.
This makes Trump sound exactly like a criminal mob boss, especially in light of the fact
that the USA is now the world's #1 exporter of oil – a fact that the arrogant Orange
Man has even boasted about in recent months. Can anyone confirm that this claim is accurate?
If so, then the more I learn about Trump the more sleazy and gangster like he becomes.
I mean, think about it. Bush and Cheney and mostly jewish neocons LIED us into Iraq based
on bald faced lies, fabricated evidence, and exaggerated threats that they KNEW did not
exist. We destroyed that country, captured and killed it's leader – who used to be a
big buddy of the USA when we had a use for him – and Bush's crime gang killed close to
2 million innocent Iraqis and wrecked their economy and destroyed their infrastructure. And,
now, after all that death, destruction and carnage – which Trump claimed in 2016 he did
not approve of – but, now that Trump is sitting on the throne in the Oval office
– he has the audacity and the gall to demand that Iraq owes the USA 50 percent of their
oil profits? And, that he won't honor and respect their demand to pull our troops out of
their sovereign nation unless they PAY US back for the gigantic waste of tax payers money
that was spent building permanent bases inside their country?
Not one Iraqi politician voted for the appropriations bill that financed the construction
of those military bases; that was our mistake, the mistake of our US congress whichever POTUS
signed off on it.
...Trump learned the power of the purse on the streets of NYC, he survived by playing ball
with the Jewish and Italian Mafia. Now he has become the ultimate Godfather, and the world
must listen to his commands. Watch and listen as the powerful and mighty crumble under US
Hegemony.
Right TG, traditionally, as you said up there first, and legally too, under the supreme law
of the land. Economic sanctions are subject to the same UNSC supervision as forcible
coercion.
UN Charter Article 41: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the
use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon
the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or
partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio,
and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
US "sanctions" require UNSC authorization. Unilateral sanctions are nothing but illegal
coercive intervention, as the non-intervention principle is customary international law,
which is US federal common law.
The G-192, that is, the entire world, has affirmed this law. That's why the US is trying
to defund UNCTAD as redundant with the WTO (UNCTAD is the G-192's primary forum.) In any
case, now that the SCO is in a position to enforce this law at gunpoint with its
overwhelmingly superior missile technology, the US is going to get stomped and tased until it
complies and stops resisting.
In 2018 total US petroleum production was under 18 million barrels per day, total
consumption north of 20 mmb/d. What does it matter if the US exports a bunch of super light
fracked product the US itself can't refine if it turns around and imports it all back in
again and then some.
The myths we tell ourselves, like a roaring economy that nevertheless generates a $1
trillion annual deficit, will someday come back to bite us. Denying reality is not a winning
game plan for the long run.
I long tought that US foreign policies were mainly zionist agenda – driven, but the
Venezuelan affair and the statements of Trump himself about the syrian oil (ta be "kept"
(stolen)) make you think twice.
Oil seems to be at least very important even if it's not the main cause of middle east
problems
So maybe it's the cause of illegal and cruel sanctions against Iran : Get rid of
competitor to sell shale oil everywhere ?( think also of Norstream 2 here)
Watch out US of A. in the end there is something sometimes referred to as the oil's
curse . some poor black Nigerians call oil "the shit of the devil", because it's such a
problem – related asset Have you heard of it ? You get your revenues from oil easily,
so you don't have to make effort by yourself. And in the end you don't keep pace with China
on 5G ? Education fails ? Hmm
Becommig a primary sector extraction nation sad destiny indeed, like africans growing cafe,
bananas and cacao for others. Not to mention environmental problems
What has happened to the superb Nation that send the first man on the moon and invented
modern computers ?
Disapointment
Money for space or money for war following the Zio. Choose Uncle Sam !
Difficult to have both
Everyone seems to forget how we avoided war with Syria all those years ago It was when John
Kerry of all people gaffed, and said "if Assad gives up all his chemical weapons." That was
in response to a reporter who asked "is there anything that can stop the war?" A intrepid
Russian ambassador chimed in loud enough for the press core to hear his "OK" and history was
averted. Thinking restricting the power of the President will stop brown children from dying
at the hands of insane US foreign policy is a cope. "Bi-partisanship" voted to keep troops in
Syria, that was only a few months ago, have you already forgotten? Dubya started the drone
program, and the magical African everyone fawns over, literally doubled the remote controlled
death. We are way past pretending any elected official from either side is actually against
more ME war, or even that one side is worse than the other.
The problem with the supporters Trump has left is they so desperately want to believe in
something bigger than themselves. They have been fed propaganda for their whole lives, and as
a result can only see the world in either "this is good" or "this is bad." The problem with
the opposition is that they are insane. and will say or do anything regardless of the truth.
Trump could be impeached for assassinating Sulimani, yet they keep proceeding with fake and
retarded nonsense. Just like keeping troops in Syria, even the most insane rabid leftoids are
just fine with US imperialism, so long as it's promoting Starbucks, Marvel and homosex, just
like we see with support for HK. That is foreign meddling no matter how you try to justify
it, and it's not even any different messaging than the hoax "bring
democracyhumanrightsfreedom TM to the poor Arabs" justification that was used in Iraq. They
don't even have to come up with a new play to run, it's really quite incredible.
@OverCommenter
A lot of right-wingers also see military action in the Middle East as a way for America to
flex its muscles and bomb some Arabs. It also serves to justify the insane defence budget
that could be used to build a wall and increase funding to ICE.
US politics has become incredibly bi-partisan, criticising Trump will get you branded a
'Leftist' in many circles. This extreme bipartisanship started with the Obama birth
certificate nonsense which was being peddled by Jews like Orly Taitz, Philip J. Berg, Robert
L. Shulz, Larry Klayman and Breitbart news – most likely because Obama was pursuing the
JCPOA and not going hard enough on Iran – and continued with the Trump Russian agent
angle.
Now many Americans cannot really think critically, they stick to their side like a fan
sticks to their sports team.
The first person I ever heard say sanctions are acts of war was Ron Paul. The repulsive
Madeleine Albright infamously said the deaths of 500,000 Iranian children due to US sanctions
was worth it. She ought to be tried as a war criminal. Ron Paul ought to be Secretary of
State.
Looks like the end of Full Spectrum Dominance the the USA enjoyed since 1991. Alliance of Iran, Russia and China (with Turkey
and Pakistan as two possible members) is serious military competitor and while the USA has its set of trump cards, the military
victory against such an alliance no longer guaranteed.
Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, new and important information is
coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister. The story behind Soleimani's
assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi
Arabia and China as well the US dollar's role as the global reserve currency .
The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with
Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani's assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament.
He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him
and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in
false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the
situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in
2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos.
Here is the reconstruction of the story:
[Speaker of the Council of Representatives of Iraq] Halbousi attended the parliamentary
session while almost none of the Sunni members did. This was because the Americans had
learned that Abdul-Mehdi was planning to reveal sensitive secrets in the session and sent
Halbousi to prevent this. Halbousi cut Abdul-Mehdi off at the commencement of his speech and
then asked for the live airing of the session to be stopped. After this, Halbousi together
with other members, sat next to Abdul-Mehdi, speaking openly with him but without it being
recorded. This is what was discussed in that session that was not broadcast:
Abdul-Mehdi spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused
to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil
revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.
The complete (translated)
words of Abdul-Mahdi's speech to parliament:
This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the
construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement.
When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my
premiership.
Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that
if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings
target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.
I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us
rescinding our deal with the Chinese.
After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting
both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I
received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we
kept on talking about this "third party".
Nobody imagined that the threat was to be applied to General Soleimani, but it was difficult
for Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to reveal the weekslong backstory behind the terrorist
attack.
I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to
deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from
the Saudis.
We can surmise, judging by Saudi Arabia's reaction , that some kind of
negotiation was going on between Tehran and Riyadh:
The Kingdom's statement regarding the events in Iraq stresses the Kingdom's view of the
importance of de-escalation to save the countries of the region and their people from the
risks of any escalation.
Above all, the Saudi
Royal family wanted to let people know immediately that they had not been informed of the
US operation:
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not consulted regarding the US strike. In light of the
rapid developments, the Kingdom stresses the importance of exercising restraint to guard
against all acts that may lead to escalation, with severe consequences.
And to emphasize his reluctance for war, Mohammad bin Salman
sent a delegation to the United States.
Liz Sly , the Washington Post Beirut bureau chief, tweated:
Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to Washington to urge restraint with Iran on behalf
of [Persian] Gulf states. The message will be: 'Please spare us the pain of going through
another war'.
What clearly emerges is that the success of the operation against Soleimani had nothing to
do with the intelligence gathering of the US or Israel. It was known to all and sundry that
Soleimani was heading to Baghdad in a diplomatic capacity that acknowledged Iraq's efforts to
mediate a solution to the regional crisis with Saudi Arabia.
It would seem that the Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis were well on the way towards averting a
regional conflict involving Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Riyadh's reaction to the American strike
evinced no public joy or celebration. Qatar, while not seeing eye to eye with Riyadh on many
issues, also immediately expressed solidarity with Tehran, hosting a meeting at a senior
government level with Mohammad Zarif Jarif, the Iranian foreign minister. Even Turkey
and
Egypt , when commenting on the asassination, employed moderating language.
This could reflect a fear of being on the receiving end of Iran's retaliation. Qatar, the
country from which the drone that killed Soleimani took off, is only a stone's throw away from
Iran, situated on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Tehran's
regional enemies, both know that a military conflict with Iran would mean the end of the Saudi
royal family.
When the words of the Iraqi prime minister are linked back to the geopolitical and energy
agreements in the region, then the worrying picture starts to emerge of a desperate US lashing
out at a world turning its back on a unipolar world order in favor of the emerging multipolar
about which
I have long written .
The US, now considering itself a net energy exporter as a result of the shale-oil revolution
(on which the jury is still out), no longer needs to import oil from the Middle East. However,
this does not mean that oil can now be traded in any other currency other than the US
dollar.
The petrodollar is what ensures that the US dollar retains its status as the global reserve
currency, granting the US a monopolistic position from which it derives enormous benefits from
playing the role of regional hegemon.
This privileged position of holding the global reserve currency also ensures that the US can
easily fund its war machine by virtue of the fact that much of the world is obliged to buy its
treasury bonds that it is simply able to conjure out of thin air. To threaten this comfortable
arrangement is to threaten Washington's global power.
Even so, the geopolitical and economic trend is inexorably towards a multipolar world order,
with China increasingly playing a leading role, especially in the Middle East and South
America.
Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia together make up the overwhelming
majority of oil and gas reserves in the world. The first three have an elevated relationship
with Beijing and are very much in the multipolar camp, something that China and Russia are keen
to further consolidate in order to ensure the future growth for the Eurasian supercontinent
without war and conflict.
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is pro-US but could gravitate towards the Sino-Russian camp
both militarily and in terms of energy. The same process is going on with Iraq and Qatar thanks
to Washington's numerous strategic errors in the region starting from Iraq in 2003, Libya in
2011 and Syria and Yemen in recent years.
The agreement between Iraq and China is a prime example of how Beijing intends to use the
Iraq-Iran-Syria troika to revive the Middle East and and link it to the Chinese Belt and Road
Initiative.
While Doha and Riyadh would be the first to suffer economically from such an agreement,
Beijing's economic power is such that, with its win-win approach, there is room for
everyone.
Saudi Arabia provides China with most of its oil and Qatar, together with the Russian
Federation, supply China with most of its LNG needs, which lines up with Xi Jinping's 2030
vision that aims to greatly reduce polluting emissions.
The US is absent in this picture, with little ability to influence events or offer any
appealing economic alternatives.
Washington would like to prevent any Eurasian integration by unleashing chaos and
destruction in the region, and killing Soleimani served this purpose. The US cannot contemplate
the idea of the dollar losing its status as the global reserve currency. Trump is engaging in a
desperate gamble that could have disastrous consequences.
The region, in a worst-case scenario, could be engulfed in a devastating war involving
multiple countries. Oil refineries could be destroyed all across the region, a quarter of the
world's oil transit could be blocked, oil prices would skyrocket ($200-$300 a barrel) and
dozens of countries would be plunged into a global financial crisis. The blame would be laid
squarely at Trump's feet, ending his chances for re-election.
To try and keep everyone in line, Washington is left to resort to terrorism, lies and
unspecified threats of visiting destruction on friends and enemies alike.
Trump has evidently been convinced by someone that the US can do without the Middle East,
that it can do without allies in the region, and that nobody would ever dare to sell oil in any
other currency than the US dollar.
Soleimani's death is the result of a convergence of US and Israeli interests. With no other
way of halting Eurasian integration, Washington can only throw the region into chaos by
targeting countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria that are central to the Eurasian project. While
Israel has never had the ability or audacity to carry out such an assassination itself, the
importance of the Israel Lobby to Trump's electoral success would have influenced his decision,
all the more so in an election year .
Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents,
winning the support of his voters (by equating Soleimani's assassination to Osama bin Laden's),
and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China.
The assassination of Soleimani is the US lashing out at its steady loss of influence in the
region. The Iraqi attempt to mediate a lasting peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been
scuppered by the US and Israel's determination to prevent peace in the region and instead
increase chaos and instability.
Washington has not achieved its hegemonic status through a preference for diplomacy and calm
dialogue, and Trump has no intention of departing from this approach.
Washington's friends and enemies alike must acknowledge this reality and implement the
countermeasures necessary to contain the madness.
Very good article, straight to the point. In fact its much worse. I know is hard to
swallow for my US american brother and sisters.
But as sooner you wake up and see the reality as it is, as better chances the US has to
survive with honor. Stop the wars around the globe and do not look for excuses. Isnt it
already obvious what is going on with the US war machine? How many more examples some people
need to wake up?
Not all said in video above is accurate but the recent events in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
Africa are all related to prevent China from overtaking the zionist hegemonic world and to
recolonize China (at least the parasite is trying to hop to China as new host).
Trade war, Huawei, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet ..... the concerted efforts from all zionist
controlled media (ZeroHedge included) to slander, smearing, fake news against China should
tell you what the Zionists agenda are :)
The American President's threatened the Iraqi Prime Minister to liquidate him directly
with the Minister of Defense. The Marines are the third party that sniped the demonstrators
and the security men:
Abdul Mahdi continued:
"After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me. Indeed,
the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of
non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, so that the third party (Marines snipers) would
target the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from the highest structures and
the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China
agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist
to this day on canceling the China agreement and when the defense minister said that who
kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically
threatened me and defense minister in the event of talk about the third party."
.........
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission found George W. Bush guilty of war crimes in absentia
for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Bush, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers
Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in
absentia in Malaysia.
Unfortunately, this article makes a lot of sense. The US is losing influence and lashing
out carelessly. I hope the rest of the world realizes how detached majority of the citizens
within the states are from the federal government. The Federal government brings no good to
our nation. None. From the mis management of our once tax revenues to the corrupt Congress
who accepts bribes from the highest bidder, it's a rats best that is not only harmful to its
own people, but the world at large. USD won't go down without a fight it seems... All empires
end with a bang. Be ready
"nice" Americans: .. Here is a sample of nice Americans who want to control our breath:
Pompeo , Fri 24 Jan 2020: "You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?"
Michael Richard Pompeo (57 y.o.) is the United States secretary of state. He is a former
United States Army officer and was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from January
2017 until April 2018
Nuland , earlier than Feb 2014: "Fuck the EU."
Victoria Jane Nuland (59 y.o) is the former Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State. She held the rank of Career
Ambassador, the highest diplomatic rank in the United States Foreign Service. She is the
former CEO of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and is also a Member of the
Board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
"... Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and "Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without corroborating sources." ..."
"... According to what we know, a Hezbollah agent conducted years of surveillance on potential targets , and alleged sleeper agents within U.S. cities have so far not been activated, even in the wake of Iranian Quds force General Soleimani's death and the series of crippling sanctions the Trump administration has put on Iran. ..."
Why is Pompeo suddenly directing increasingly heated rhetoric towards Iran and its proxies
in South America?
"Anti-Iran hawks like Pompeo like to emphasize that Iran is not a defensively-minded
international actor, but rather that it is offensively-minded and poses a direct threat to the
United States," said Max Abrahms, associate professor of political science at Northeastern and
fellow of the Quincy Institute said in an interview with The American Conservative. "And
so for obvious reasons, underscoring Hezbollah's international tentacles helps to sell their
argument that Iran needs to be dealt with in a military way, and that the key to dealing with
Iran is through confrontation and pressure."
Stories highlighting the role of Hezbollah in America's backyard "are almost always peddled
by anti-Iran hawks," he said.
Like Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security
Policy, who aligns with the argument that Hezbollah has been populating South America since the
days of the Islamic revolution.
"From at least the 1980s, many Lebanese fled to South America, and among that flow Hezbollah
embedded themselves," she told The American Conservative in a recent interview. Their
activity "really expanded throughout the continent" during the presidencies of Iran's Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
During that time, Lopez added, "there was a really strong relationship that developed
Iranians established diplomatic facilities, enormous embassies and consulates, embedded IRGC
cover positions and MOIS (intelligence services) within commercial companies and mosques and
Islamic centers. This took place in Brazil in particular but Venezuela also."
Iran and Hezbollah intensified their involvement throughout the region in technical services
like tunneling, money laundering, and drug trafficking. Venezuela offered Iran an international
banking work-around during the period of sanctions, said Lopez.
Obviously security analysts like Lopez and even Pompeo, have been following this for years.
But the timing here, as the Senate impeachment inquiry heats up, looks suspicious.
Last week, just as it looks increasingly likely that former national security advisor John
Bolton and Pompeo himself will be hauled before the Senate as witnesses about the foreign aid
hold-up to Ukraine, Pompeo praised Colombia, Honduras, and Guatemala for designating
"Iran-backed Hezbollah a terrorist organization," and slammed Venezuelan President Nicolas
Maduro for embracing the terrorist group.
Hezbollah "has found a home in Venezuela under Maduro. This is unacceptable," Pompeo said
when he met with Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido last week.
Asked by Bloomberg News how significant a role Hezbollah plays in the region, Pompeo
responded, "too much."
From the interview:
Pompeo : " I mentioned it in Venezuela, but in the Tri-Border Area as well. This
is again an area where Iranian influence – we talk about them as the world's largest
state sponsor of terror. We do that intentionally. It's the world's largest; it's not just a
Middle East phenomenon. So while – when folks think of Hezbollah, they typically think
of Syria and Lebanon, but Hezbollah has now put down roots throughout the globe and in South
America, and it's great to see now multiple countries now having designated Hezbollah as a
terrorist organization. It means we can work together to stamp out the security threat in the
region."
Question: "I'm struck by this, because even hearing you – what you're
saying, right, now – I mean, to take a step back, an Iranian-backed terrorist
organization has found a home in America's backyard."
Pompeo: "It's – it's something that we've been talking about for some
time. When you see the scope and reach of what the Islamic Republic of Iran's regime has
done, you can't forget they tried to kill someone in the United States of America. They've
conducted assassination campaigns in Europe. This is a global phenomenon. When we say that
Iran is the leading destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world, it's
because of this terror activity that they have now spread as a cancer all across the globe.
"
Pompeo has also been publicly floating increasing sanctions on Venezuela. He called the
behavior of Maduro's government "cartel-like" and "terror-like," intensifying the sense that
there is a real security "threat" in our hemisphere.
Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and
"Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about
Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is
the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without
corroborating sources."
There's no question that Hezbollah has a presence in South America, said Abrahms, "but the
nature of its presence has been politicized."
"What this underscores is that Iran could pull the trigger, it could bloody
the U.S., including the U.S. homeland, but tends to avoid such violence. I think the question
that needs to be asked isn't just, 'where in the world could Iran commit an attack?' but
whether Iran is a rational actor that can be deterred," said Abrahms. "Interestingly, this
administration as well as its hawkish supporters tend to emphasize their belief that Iran can
in fact be deterred," since that is the logic behind "maximum pressure" against Iran, after
all. "The main causal mechanism according to advocates of maximum pressure, is that it will
force Iran as a rational actor to reconsider whether it wants to irritate the U.S By applying
economic pressure through sanctions, [they hope to] succeed in coaxing Iran to restructure the
nuclear deal and making additional concessions to the west and reigning in its activities in
the Persian Gulf and the Levant. At least on a rhetorical level, the hawks say they believe
Iran can be deterred," he said.
It would not be the first time that a president reacted to an intensifying impeachment
inquiry by redirecting national focus to threats abroad. In December 1998, as the impeachment
inquiry into then-President Bill Clinton heated up, Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq.
We should therefore apply some caution when we see decades-old threats amplified by
administration officials.
Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security
reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She
is the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her
work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill, UK Spectator, and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from
Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter
This is a very valuable article, probably the best written in 2019 on the topic, that discusses several important aspects of neoliberalism
better then its predecessors...
Notable quotes:
"... For some, and especially for those in the millennial generation, the Great Recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started a process of reflection on what the neoliberal era had delivered. ..."
"... neoliberal policies had already wreaked havoc around the world ..."
"... "excessively rapid financial and capital market liberalization was probably the single most important cause of the crisis"; he also notes that after the crisis, the International Monetary Fund's policies "exacerbated the downturns." ..."
"... In study after study, political scientists have shown that the U.S. government is highly responsive to the policy preferences of the wealthiest people, corporations, and trade associations -- and that it is largely unresponsive to the views of ordinary people. The wealthiest people, corporations, and their interest groups participate more in politics, spend more on politics, and lobby governments more. Leading political scientists have declared that the U.S. is no longer best characterized as a democracy or a republic but as an oligarchy -- a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism. ..."
"... neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. ..."
"... Demagogues rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism, which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for a free and democratic society. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. ..."
"... In spite of these failures, most policymakers did not have a new ideology or different worldview through which to comprehend the problems of this time. So, by and large, the collective response was not to abandon neoliberalism. After the Great Crash of 2008, neoliberals chafed at attempts to push forward aggressive Keynesian spending programs to spark demand. President Barack Obama's advisers shrank the size of the post-crash stimulus package for fear it would seem too large to the neoliberal consensus of the era -- and on top of that, they compromised on its content. ..."
"... When it came to affirmative, forward-looking policy, the neoliberal framework also remained dominant. ..."
"... It is worth emphasizing that Obamacare's central feature is a private marketplace in which people can buy their own health care, with subsidies for individuals who are near the poverty line ..."
"... Fearful of losing their seats, centrists extracted these concessions from progressives. Little good it did them. The president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections, and this time was no different. For their caution, centrists both lost their seats and gave Americans fewer and worse health care choices. ..."
"... The Republican Party platform in 2012, for example, called for weaker Wall Street, environmental, and worker safety regulations; lower taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals; and further liberalization of trade. It called for abolishing federal student loans, in addition to privatizing rail, western lands, airport security, and the post office. Republicans also continued their support for cutting health care and retirement security. After 40 years moving in this direction -- and with it failing at every turn -- you might think they would change their views. But Republicans didn't, and many still haven't. ..."
"... Although neoliberalism had little to offer, in the absence of a new ideological framework, it hung over the Obama presidency -- but now in a new form. Many on the center-left adopted what we might call the "technocratic ideology," a rebranded version of the policy minimalism of the 1990s that replaced minimalism's tactical and pragmatic foundations with scientific ones. The term itself is somewhat oxymoronic, as technocrats seem like the opposite of ideologues. ..."
"... The technocratic ideology preserves the status quo with a variety of tactics. We might call the first the "complexity canard." ..."
"... The most frequent uses of this tactic are in sectors that economists have come to dominate -- international trade, antitrust, and financial regulation, for example. The result of this mind-set is that bold, structural reforms are pushed aside and highly technical changes adopted instead. Financial regulation provides a particularly good case, given the 2008 crash and the Great Recession. When it came time to establish a new regulatory regime for the financial sector, there wasn't a massive restructuring, despite the biggest crash in 70 years. ..."
"... Instead, for the most part, the Dodd-Frank Act was classically technocratic. It kept the sector basically the same, with a few tweaks here and there. There was no attempt to restructure the financial sector completely. ..."
"... The Volcker Rule, for example, sought to ban banks from proprietary trading. But instead of doing that through a simple, clean breakup rule (like the one enacted under the old Glass-Steagall regime), the Volcker Rule was subject to a multitude of exceptions and carve-outs -- measures that federal regulators were then required to explain and implement with hundreds of pages of technical regulations ..."
"... Dodd-Frank also illustrates a second tenet of the technocratic ideology: The failures of technocracy can be solved by more technocracy. ..."
"... Dodd-Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a government body tasked with what is called macroprudential regulation. What this means is that government regulators are supposed to monitor the entire economy and turn the dials of regulation up and down a little bit to keep the economy from another crash. But ask yourself this: Why would we ever believe they could do such a thing? We know those very same regulators failed to identify, warn about, or act on the 2008 crisis. ..."
"... In the first stage, neoliberalism gained traction in response to the crises of the 1970s. It is easy to think of Thatcherism and Reaganism as emerging fully formed, springing from Zeus's head like the goddess Athena. ..."
"... Early leaders were not as ideologically bold as later mythmakers think. In the second stage, neoliberalism became normalized. It persisted beyond the founding personalities -- and, partly because of its longevity in power, grew so dominant that the other side adopted it. ..."
"... Eventually, however, the neoliberal ideology extended its tentacles into every area of policy and even social life, and in its third stage, overextended. The result in economic policy was the Great Crash of 2008, economic stagnation, and inequality at century-high levels. In foreign policy, it was the disastrous Iraq War and ongoing chaos and uncertainty in the Middle East. ..."
"... The fourth and final stage is collapse, irrelevance, and a wandering search for the future. With the world in crisis, neoliberalism no longer has even plausible solutions to today's problems. ..."
"... The solutions of the neoliberal era offer no serious ideas for how to restitch the fraying social fabric, in which people are increasingly tribal, divided, and disconnected from civic community ..."
Welcome
to theDecade From Hell,
our look back at an arbitrary 10-year period that began with a great outpouring of hope and
ended in a cavalcade of despair.The long-dominant ideology brought us forever
wars, the Great Recession, and extreme inequality. Good riddance.
With the 2008 financial crash and the Great Recession, the ideology of neoliberalism lost
its force. The approach to politics, global trade, and social philosophy that defined an era
led not to never-ending prosperity but utter disaster. "Laissez-faire is finished," declared
French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted in testimony
before Congress that his ideology was flawed. In an extraordinary statement, Australian Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd declared that the crash "called into question the prevailing neoliberal
economic orthodoxy of the past 30 years -- the orthodoxy that has underpinned the national and
global regulatory frameworks that have so spectacularly failed to prevent the economic mayhem
which has been visited upon us."
It's amazing all the money in the State Department and other intelligence agencies should be
attracting the best minds. Yet a bunch of us sitting here watching this from our boring
office jobs realize how genuinely stupid US foreign policy has been.
A separate Sunni state in West Iraq would be doomed. We need to leave these people alone,
we've made enough foolish mistakes and this will get a lot of people killed. That's along
with US troops being put in harms way for ridiculous reasons like stealing Syrian oil and now
occupying Iraq against their parliaments wishes.
Back in the day you told someone you were American and they wanted to shake your hand and
ask you about this place or that. Now they want to spit in our faces
"... The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance": once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate? ..."
The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the
Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General
Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this
targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the
assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US
officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance":
once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq
and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate?
A high-ranking source within this "Axis of the Resistance" said " Sardar Soleimani was the direct and fast track link
between the partners of Iran and the Leader of the Revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei. However, the
command on the ground belonged to the national leaders in every single separate country. These
leaders have their leadership and practices, but common strategic objectives to fight against
the US hegemony, stand up to the oppressors and to resist illegitimate foreign intervention in
their affairs. These objectives have been in place for many years and will remain, with or
without Sardar Soleimani".
"In Lebanon, Hezbollah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah leads Lebanon and is
the one with a direct link to the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He supports Gaza, Syria,
Iraq and Yemen and has a heavy involvement in these fronts. However, he leads a large number
of advisors and officers in charge of running all military, social and relationship affairs
domestically and regionally. Many Iranian IRGC officers are also present on many of these
fronts to support the needs of the "Axis of the Resistance" members in logistics, training
and finance," said the source.
In Syria, IRGC officers coordinate with Russia, the Syrian Army, the Syrian political
leadership and all Iran's allies fighting for the liberation of the country and for the defeat
of the jihadists who flocked to Syria from all continents via Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. These
officers have worked side by side with Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and other nationals who are part
of the "Axis of the Resistance". They have offered the Syrian government the needed support to
defeat the "Islamic State" (ISIS/IS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda and other jihadists or those of similar
ideologies in most of the country – with the exception of north-east Syria, which is
under US occupation forces. These IRGC officers have their objectives and the means to achieve
a target already agreed and in place for years. The absence of Sardar Soleimani will hardly
affect these forces and their plans.
In Iraq, over 100 Iranian IRGC officers have been operating in the country at the official
request of the Iraqi government, to defeat ISIS. They served jointly with the Iraqi forces and
were involved in supplying the country with weapons, intelligence and training after the fall
of a third of Iraq into the hands of ISIS in mid-2014. It was striking and shocking to see the
Iraqi Army, armed and trained by US forces for over ten years, abandoning its positions and
fleeing the northern Iraqi cities. Iranian support with its robust ideology (with one of its
allies, motivating them to fight ISIS) was efficient in Syria; thus, it was necessary to
transmit this to the Iraqis so they could stand, fight, and defeat ISIS.
The Lebanese Hezbollah is present in Syria and Yemen, and also in Iraq. The Iraqi Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki asked Sayyed Nasrallah to provide his country with officers to stand
against ISIS. Dozens of Hezbollah officers operate in Iraq and will be ready to support the
Iraqis if the US forces refuse to leave the country. They will abide by and enforce the
decision of the Parliament that the US must leave by end January 2021. Hezbollah's long warfare
experience has resulted in painful experiences with the US forces in Lebanon and Iraq
throughout several decades and has not been forgotten.
Sayyed Nasrallah, in his latest speech, revealed the presence in mid-2014 of Hezbollah
officials in Kurdistan to support the Iraqi Kurds against ISIS. This was when the same Kurdish
Leader Masoud Barzani announced that it was due to Iran that the Kurds received weapons to
defend themselves when the US refused to help Iraq for many months after ISIS expanded its
control in northern Iraq.
The Hezbollah leaders did not disclose the continuous visits of Kurdish representatives to
Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials. In fact, Iraqi Sunni and Shia officials, ministers and
political leaders regularly visit Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials and its leader.
Hezbollah, like Iran, plays an essential role in easing the dialogue between Iraqis when these
find it difficult to overcome their differences together.
The reason why Sayyed Nasrallah revealed the presence of his officers in Kurdistan when
meeting Masoud Barzani is a clear message to the world that the "Axis of the Resistance"
doesn't depend on one single person. Indeed, Sayyed Nasrallah is showing the unity which reigns
among this front, with or without Sardar Soleimani. Barzani is part of Iraq, and Kurdistan
expressed its readiness to abide by the decision of the Iraqi Parliament to seek the US forces'
departure from the country because the Kurds are not detached from the central government but
part of it.
Prior to his assassination, Sardar Soleimani prepared the ground to be followed (if killed
on the battlefield, for example) and asked Iranian officials to nominate General Ismail Qaani
as his replacement. The Leader of the revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei ordered Soleimani's wish
to be fulfilled and to keep the plans and objectives already in place as they were. Sayyed
Khamenei, according to the source, ordered an "increase in support for the Palestinians and, in
particular, to all allies where US forces are present."
Sardar Soleimani was looking for his death by his enemies and got what he wished for. He was
aware that the "Axis of the Resistance" is highly aware of its objectives. Those among the
"Axis of the Resistance" who have a robust internal front are well-established and on track.
The problem was mainly in Iraq. But it seems the actions of the US have managed to bring Iraqi
factions together- by assassinating the two commanders. Sardar Soleimani could have never
expected a rapid achievement of this kind. Anti-US Iraqis are preparing this coming Friday to
express their rejection of the US forces present in their country.
Sayyed Ali Khamenei , in his Friday prayers last week, the first for eight years, set up a
road map for the "Axis of the Resistance": push the US forces out of the Middle East and
support Palestine.
All Palestinian groups, including Hamas, were present at Sardar Soleimani's funeral in Iran
and met with General Qaani who promised, "not only to continue support but to increase it
according to Sayyed Khamenei's request," said the source. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas Leader, said
from Tehran: "Soleimani is the martyr of Jerusalem".
Many Iraqi commanders were present at the meeting with General Qaani. Most of these have a
long record of hostility towards US forces in Iraq during the occupation period (2003-2011).
Their commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, was assassinated with Sardar Soleimani and they are
seeking revenge. Those leaders have enough motivation to attack the US forces, who have
violated the Iraq-US training, cultural and armament agreement. At no time was the US
administration given a license to kill in Iraq by the government of Baghdad.
The Iraqi Parliament has spoken: and the assassination of Sardar Soleimani has indeed fallen
within the ultimate objectives of the "Axis of the Resistance". The Iraqi caretaker Prime
Minister has officially informed all members of the Coalition Forces in Iraq that "their
presence, including that of NATO, is now no longer required in Iraq". They have one year to
leave. But that absolutely does not exclude the Iraqi need to avenge their commanders.
Palestine constitutes the second objective, as quoted by Sayyed Khamenei. We cannot exclude
a considerable boost of support for the Palestinians, much more than the actually existing one.
Iran is determined to support the Sunni Palestinians in their objective to have a state of
their own in Palestine. The man – Soleimani – is gone and is replaceable like any
other man: but the level of commitment to goals has increased. It is hard to imagine the "Axis
of the Resistance" remaining idle without engaging themselves somehow in the US Presidential
campaign. So, the remainder of 2020 is expected to be hot.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Everyone keeps dancing around it: Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani
was on the way to see him with a reply to a Saudi peace proposal. Who profits from
Peace? Who does not?
The killing of Soleimani, while a tragic even with far reaching consequences, is just
an illustration of the general rule: MIC does not profit from peace. And MIC dominates
any national security state, into which the USA was transformed by the technological
revolution on computers and communications, as well as the events of 9/11.
The USA government can be viewed as just a public relations center for MIC. That's why
Trump/Pompeo/Esper/Pence gang position themselves as rabid neocons, which means MIC
lobbyists in order to hold their respective positions. There is no way out of this
situation. This is a classic Catch 22 trap.
The fact that a couple of them are also "Rapture" obsessed religious bigots means that
the principle of separation of church and state does no matter when MIC interests are
involved.
The health of MIC requires maintaining an inflated defense budget at all costs. Which,
in turn, drives foreign wars and the drive to capture other nations' resources to
compensate for MIC appetite. The drive which is of course closely allied with Wall Street
interests (disaster capitalism.)
In such conditions fake "imminent threat" assassinations necessarily start happening.
Although the personality of Pompeo and the fact that he is a big friend of the current
head of Mossad probably played some role.
It's really funny that Trump (probably with the help of his "reference group," which
includes Adelson and Kushner), managed to appoint as the top US diplomat a person who was
trained as a mechanic engineer and specialized as a tank repair mechanic. And who was a
long-time military contractor. So it is quite natural that he represents interests of
MIC.
IMHO under Trump/Pompeo/Esper trio some kind of additional skirmishes with Iran are a
real possibility: they are necessary to maintain the current inflated level of defense
spending.
State of the US infrastructure, the actual level of unemployment (U6 is ~7% which some
neolibs call full employment ;-), and the level of poverty of the bottom 33% of the USA
population be damned. Essentially the bottom 33% is the third world country within the
USA.
"If you make more than $15,000 (roughly the annual salary of a minimum-wage employee
working 40 hours per week), you earn more than 32.2% of Americans
The 894 people that earn more than $20 million make more than 99.99989% of
Americans, and are compensated a cumulative $37,009,979,568 per year. "
"... War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader, while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely. ..."
"... The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. ..."
"... is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media , and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: [email protected] ..."
The U.S. stands at the precipice of war. President Trump's rhetorical efforts to
sell himself as the "anti-war" president have been exposed as a fraud via his assault on Iran.
Most Orwellian of all is Trump's claim that the assassination of Iranian General Qassam
Soleimani was necessary to avert war, following the New Year's Eve attack on the U.S. embassy
in Baghdad. In reality the U.S. hit on Soleimani represents a criminal escalation of the
conflict between these two countries. The general's assassination was rightly seen as an
act of war , so the claim that the strike is a step toward peace is absurd on its face. We
should be perfectly clear about the fundamental threat to peace posed by the Trump
administration. Iran has already
promised "harsh retaliation" following the assassination, and
announced it is pulling out of the 2015 multi-national agreement prohibiting the nation
from developing nuclear weapons. Trump's escalation has dramatically increased the threat of
all-out war. Recognizing this threat, I sketch out an argument here based on my initial
thoughts of this conflict, providing three reasons for why Americans need to oppose war.
#1: No Agreement about an Iranian Threat
Soleimani was the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – the Quds Force
– a clandestine military intelligence organization that specializes in paramilitary-style
operations throughout the Middle East, and which is
described as seeking to further Iranian political influence throughout the region. Trump
celebrated the assassination as necessary to bringing Soleimani's "reign of terror" to an
end. The strike, he claimed, was vital after the U.S. caught Iran "in the act" of planning
"imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel."
But Trump's justification for war comes from a country with a long history of distorting and
fabricating evidence of an Iranian threat. American leaders have disingenuously and
propagandistically portrayed Iran as on the brink of developing nuclear weapons for decades.
Presidents Bush and Obama were both rebuked, however, by domestic intelligence
and
international weapons inspectors , which failed to uncover evidence that Iran was
developing these weapons, or that it was a threat to the U.S.
Outside of previous exaggerations, evidence is emerging that the Trump administration and
the intelligence community are not of one mind regarding Iran's alleged threat. Shortly after
Soleimani's assassination, the Department of Homeland Security declared
there was "no specific, credible threat" from Iran within U.S. borders. And U.S. military
officials disagree regarding Trump's military escalation. As the New York Times
reports :
"In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most
powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him -- which they
viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq -- on the menu they
presented to President Trump. They didn't think he would take it. In the wars waged since the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents
to make other possibilities appear more palatable."
"Top pentagon officials," the Times
reports , "were stunned" by the President's order. Furthermore, the paper reported that
"the intelligence" supposedly confirming Iranian plans to attack U.S. diplomats was "thin," in
the words of at least one U.S. military official who was privy to the administration's
deliberations. According to that
source , there is no evidence of an "imminent" attack in the foreseeable future against
American targets outside U.S. borders.
U.S. leaders have always obscured facts, distorted intelligence, and fabricated information
to stoke public fears and build support for war. So it should come as no surprise that this
president is politicizing intelligence. He certainly has reason to – in order to draw
attention away from his Senate impeachment trial, and considering Trump's increasingly
desperate efforts to demonstrate that he is a serious President, not a tin-pot authoritarian
who ignores the rule of law, while shamelessly coercing and extorting foreign leaders in
pursuit of domestic electoral advantage.
Independent of the corruption charges against Trump, it is unwise for Americans to take the
President at his word, considering the blatant lies employed in the post-9/11 era to justify
war in the Middle East. Not so long ago the American public was sold a bill of goods regarding
Iraq's alleged WMDs and ties to terrorism. Neither of those claims was remotely true, and
Americans were left footing the bill for a war that cost trillions ,
based on the lies of an opportunistic president who was dead-set on exploiting public fears of
terrorism in a time of crisis. The Bush administration sold war based on intelligence they
knew was fraudulent, manipulating the nation into on a decade-long war that led to the
murder of more than
1 million Iraqis and more than 5,000 American servicemen, resulting in a failed Iraqi
state, and paving the way for the rise of ISIS. All of this is to say that the risks of
beginning another war in the Middle East are incredibly high, and Americans would do well to
seriously consider the consequences of entering a war based (yet again) on questionable
intelligence.
#2: The "War on Terrorism" as a Red Herring
U.S. leaders have long used the rhetoric of terrorism to justify war. But this strategy
represents a serious distortion of reality, via the conflation of terrorism – understood
as premeditated acts of violence to intimidate civilians – with acts of war. Trump fed
into this misrepresentation when he
described Soleimani's "reign of terror" as encompassing not only the alleged targeting of
U.S. diplomats, but attacks on "U.S. military personnel." The effort to link the deaths of U.S.
soldiers in wartime to terrorism echoes the State Department's 2019
statement , which designated Iran's Quds Force a "terrorist" organization, citing its
responsibility "for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq" from "2003 to
2011" via its support for Iraqi militias that were engaging in attacks on U.S. forces.
As propaganda goes, the attempt to link these acts of war to "terrorism" is quite perverse.
U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq were participating in a criminal, illegal occupation,
which was widely condemned by the international community. The U.S. war in Iraq was a crime of
aggression under the Nuremberg Charter, and it violated the United Nations Charter's
prohibition on the use of force, which is only allowed via Security Council authorization
(which the U.S. did not have), or in the case of military acts undertaken in self-defense
against an ongoing attack (Iraq was not at war with the U.S. prior to the 2003 invasion).
Contrary to Trump's and the State Department's propaganda, there are no grounds to classify the
deaths of military personnel in an illegal war as terrorism. Instead, one could argue that
domestic Iraqi political actors (of which Iraqi militias are included, regardless of their ties
to Iran) were within their legal rights under international law to engage in acts of
self-defense against American troops acting on behalf of a belligerent foreign power, which was
conducting an illegal occupation.
#3: More War = Further Destabilization of the Middle East
The largest takeaway from recent events should be to recognize the tremendous danger that
escalation of war poses to the U.S. and the region. The legacy of U.S. militarism in the Middle
East, North Africa, and Central Asia, is one of death, destruction, and instability. Every
major war involving the U.S. has produced humanitarian devastation and mass destruction, while
fueling instability and terrorism. With the 1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. support
for Mujahedeen radicals led to the breakdown of social order, and the rise of the radical
Taliban regime, which housed al Qaeda fundamentalists in the years prior to the September 11,
2001 terror attacks. The 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan contributed to the further
deterioration of Afghan society, and was accompanied by the return of the Taliban, ensuing in a
civil war that has persisted over the last two decades.
With Iraq, the U.S. invasion produced a massive security vacuum following the collapse of
the Iraqi government, which made possible the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq. The U.S. fueled
numerous civil wars, in Iraq during the 2000s and Syria in the 2010s, creating mass
instability, and giving rise to ISIS, which became a mini-state of its own operating across
both countries. And then there was the 2011 U.S.-NATO supported rebellion against Muammar
Gaddafi, which not only resulted in the dictator's overthrow, but in the rise of another ISIS
affiliate within Libya's border. Even Obama, the biggest cheerleader for the war, subsequently
admitted
the intervention was his "worst mistake," due to the civil war that emerged after Gaddafi's
overthrow, which opened the door for the rise of ISIS.
All of these conflicts have one thing in common. They brought tremendous devastation to the
countries under assault, via scorched-earth military campaigns, which left death, misery, and
destruction in their wake. The U.S. is adept at destroying countries, but shows little interest
in, or ability to reconstruct them. These wars provided fertile ground for Islamist radicals,
who took advantage of the resulting chaos and instability.
The primary lesson of the "War on Terror" should be clear to rationally minded observers:
U.S. wars breed not only instability, but desperation, as the people victimized by war become
increasingly tolerant of domestic extremist movements. Repressive states are widely reviled by
the people they subjugate. But the only thing worse than a dictatorship is no order at all,
when societies collapse into civil war, anarchy, and genocide. The story of ISIS's rise is one
of citizens suffering under war and instability, and becoming increasingly tolerant of
extremist political actors, so long as they are able to provide order in times of crisis. This
point is consistently neglected in U.S. political and media discourse – a sign of how
propagandistic "debates" over war have become, nearly 20 years into the U.S. "War on
Terrorism."
Where Do We Go From Here?
Trump followed up the Soleimani assassination with a Twitter announcement
that the U.S. has "targeted" 52 additional "Iranian sites," which will be attacked "if Iran
strikes any Americans or American assets." There's no reason in light of recent events to chalk
this announcement up to typical Trump-Twitter bluster. This President is desperate to begin a
war with Iran, as Trump has courted confrontation with the Islamic republic since the early
days of his presidency.
War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader,
while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification
of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely.
The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to
consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. War with Iran will only
make the Middle East more unstable, further fueling anti-American radicalism, and increasing
the terror threat to the U.S. This conclusion isn't based on speculation, but on two decades of
experience with a "War on Terror" that's done little but destroy nations and increase terror
threats. The American people can reduce the dangers of war by protesting Trump's latest
provocation, and by pressuring Congress to pass legislation condemning any future attack on
Iran as a violation of national and international law.
To contact your Representative or Senator, use the following links:
I can't quite understand how gratuitous US piracy and adventurism in places on the globe
beyond the knowledge and reach of most Americans could possibly be compared to Iranian
actions securing their immediate regional borders and interests. You can at least understand
(even if you critique) a US preoccupation with Cuba over the years, or drug cartels in
central America, or economic refugees in Mexico because they are close by and have a more
less direct effect on the stability of the US. But they have no authority beyond that other
than the ability to project violence and force. That's just simple imperialism. But now the
US have whacked a made guy without any real reason (i.e. looking at you the wrong way is not
a reason). Any mafia hood knows that, especially a New Yorker like Trump. So the climax of
The Godfather comes to mind. It is staggeringly naive and frankly moronic to think
that this is about good and evil. I bet Soleimani was no angel, but he wasn't whacked because
he was a bad guy, but because he was extraordinarily effective military organizer. Star Wars
has a lot to answer for in stunting the historical sensibilities of entire generations, but
its underlying narrative is the only MSM playbook now. Even more staggering is the stupendous
arrogance of the US belief in its 'rights' (based on thuggery and avarice), as though it were
the only power in the world capable of establishing a moral order. The lesson in humility to
come will be both long-awaited and go unheeded. Even the mob understand there has to be
rules.
After reading Crooke and Federicci's articles, there is only one way to stop this madness
blowing into a global conflict. Russia and China need to get involved whether they like it or
not. Diplomacy and sideline analysis has run its course. This is their time to stamp their
influence in the region and finish off the empire once and for all. Maybe that way, The
Europeans will grow some minerals and become sovereign again.
Otherwise, China can kiss its Belt and Road goodbye and go into a recession with the loss
of their investments up to this point and become slaves to the Americans again.
And Russia, the enemy du jour of Europe and US will be next and be crushed under economic
sanctions and isolation.
This is the moment that stars are aligned . Russia and China should park their battle
carriers off the Gulf and gives direct warning to Israel and US that any nuclear threat ,
tactical or otherwise, against anyone in the region is a non-starter.
I read so much about these two countries and that they will get involved. I have recited
those lines myself. But after these events and how things are escalating, I cannot see how
they cannot be involved. US is its most vulnerable and weakest with respect to economic,
diplomatic and military conditions.
The time of condemnations, letters of objection to the UN and veto votes in UNSC is over.
There is only one way to deal with a rogue nation and that is by force.
"... Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States." ..."
"... "Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said. ..."
"The Guardian" journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad says that before the attack on Qassem
Soleimani in Baghdad last week "there was an understanding between the Americans and the
Iranians" that allowed officials from Iran and the U.S. to move freely within Iraq and
maintained relative goodwill toward American bases.
"The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States
coexisted in Iraq," he said.
Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as
anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States."
"Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in
Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in
Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani
was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He
stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the
Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the
Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the
game have totally changed," he said.
AMY GOODMAN: Ghaith, can you comment on this new information that's come to light about the
timing of Soleimani's assassination Friday morning? Iraq's caretaker Prime Minister Adel
Abdul-Mahdi has revealed he had plans to meet with Soleimani on the day he was killed to
discuss a Saudi proposal to defuse tension in the region. Mahdi said, quote, "He came to
deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to
Iran" -- Saudi Arabia, obviously, a well-known enemy of Iran. Was he set up? Talk about the
significance of this.
GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD: Well, it is very significant if it's actually General Qassem Soleimani
came to Iraq to deliver this message, if it was actually there was a process of negotiations in
the region. We know that Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government, in general, over the last year
had been trying to position Iraq as this middle power, as this power where both -- you know, as
a country that has a relationship with both Iran and the United States. In that awkward place
Iraq found itself in, Iraq has tried to maximize on this. So they started back in summer and
fall, when there was an escalation between Iran and the United States, when Iran shot down an
American drone. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi fly to Iran, try to mediate. We've seen Adel
Abdul-Mahdi open channels of communications with the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia.
So, if it actually, the killing of General Soleimani, ended that peace initiative, it will
be kind of disastrous in the region, because, as Narges was saying earlier, it is -- you know,
Pompeo is speaking about Iran being this ultimate evil in the region, as this crescent of
Shias, as if they just arrived in the past 10 years in the region. The fact if we see Iran's
reactions, it's always a reaction to an American provocation. You've seen the occupation of
Iraq in 2003. You've seen Iran declared as an "axis of evil." So, if you see it from an Iranian
perspective, it's always this existential threat coming from the United States. And I don't
think there is a more existential threat than in past year. So, yes, I know -- I mean, I think
Adel Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government were trying to find this middle ground, which I think
is totally lost, because even Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the person who was trying to find this middle
ground, was the person who proposed this law yesterday in the Parliament to expel all American
troops from the country.
And I would like to add like another thing. The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in
which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq. So, from 2013, '14, we, as
journalists, we've seen on the frontlines how the proxies of each power have been helping each
other. So we've seen Iranian advisers helping the American-trained Iraqi Army unit or
counterterrorism unit in the fight against ISIS. In the same sense, we've seen American
airstrikes on threats to these -- kind of to ISIS when it was threatening these militias. That
coexistence, it didn't only come from both having a -- sharing an enemy, which is ISIS, or
Daesh, but also these were the rules of the game. These were the rules in which Qassem
Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad
airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He
took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in
the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans
and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would
have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, I think the rules of the game have
totally changed.
So now I think the first victim of the assassination will be the American bases in Iraq. I
don't see any way where the Americans can keep their presence as they did before the
assassination of Soleimani. And even the people in the streets, even the people who opposes
Iran, who opposes the presence of Iranian militias in power and politics, the corruption of
these pro-Iranian parties, even those people would look at these American bases now as not as a
force that came to help them in the fight against ISIS, but a force that's dragging them into a
war between Iran and the United States.
Iran has incentives to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the
great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term
Two.
Notable quotes:
"... Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump. He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4 pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in your face in an hour, Sir ". ..."
"... Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on the military (which likely will obey). ..."
"... These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper. ..."
"... As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel occupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump" ..."
"... I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have? ..."
"... The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies. If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL ..."
You have just several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria. These countries have large proxy
forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force
troops in Syria. These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said
will be used against our forces
The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC
Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed. In that
process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.
Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge? Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.
Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail. Make your own judgments.
pl
re " Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people "
Are you sure? I am not.
Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump.
He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4
pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in
your face in an hour, Sir ".
A good number of the so called grownups who gave such advice were (gameshow style) fired,
sometimes by twitter.
Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on
the military (which likely will obey).
These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even
after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper.
Israel could, if politically just a tad more insane, bomb Iran and thus invite the
inevitable retaliation. When that happens they'll cry for US aid, weapons and money because
they alone ~~~
(a) cannot defeat Iran (short of going nuclear) and ...
(b) Holocaust! We want weapons and money from Germany, too! ...
(c) they know that ...
(d) which does not lead in any way to Netanyahu showing signgs of self restraint or
reason.
Netanyahu just - it is (tight) election time - announced, in his sldedge hammer style
subtlety, that (he) Israel will annect the palestinian west jordan territory, making the
Plaestines an object in his election campaign.
IMO that idea is simply insane and invites more "troubles". But then, I didn't hear
anything like, say, Trump gvt protests against that (and why expect that from the dudes who
moved the US embassy to Jerusalem).
as for Trump and Netanyahu ... policy debate ... I had that here in mind, which pretty speaks
for itself. And I thought Trumo is just running for office in the US. Alas, it is a Netanyaho
campaign poster from the current election:
I generously assume that things like that only happen because of the hard and hard
ly work of Kushner on his somewhat elusive but of course GIGANTIC and
INCREDIBLE Middle East peace plan.
Kushner is probably getting hard and hard ly supported by Ivanka who just said that
she inherited her moral compass from her father. Well ... congatulations ... I assume.
I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has
cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate
nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have?
The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our
military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force
us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking.
Need I trot out Goering's statement regarding selling a war once more?
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.
We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are
intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy
does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we
could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies.
If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL
The 'ivestigations are a formality. The Saudis (with U.S. backing) are already saying that
the missiles were Iranian made and according to them, this proves that Iran fired them. The
Saudis are using the more judicious phrase 'behind the attack' but Pompeo is running with the
fired from Iran narrative.
How can we tell the difference between an actual Iranian manufactured missile vs one that
was manufactured in Yemen based on Iranian designs? We only have a few pictures Iranian
missiles unlike us, the Iranians don't toss them all over the place so we don't have any
physical pieces to compare them to.
Perhaps honest investigators could make a determination but even if they do exist they
will keep quiet while the bible thumping Pompeo brays and shamelessly lies as he is prone to
do.
These kinds of munition will leave hundreds of bits scattered all over their targets. I'm
waiting for the press conference with the best bits laid out on the tables.
I doubt that there will be any stencils saying 'Product of Iran', unless the paint smells
fresh.
1. I am still waiting to read some informed discussion concerning the *accuracy* of the
projectiles hitting their targets with uncanny precision from hundreds of miles away. What
does this say about the achievement of those pesky Eye-rainians? https://www.moonofalabama.org/images9/saudihit2.jpg
2. "The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the
IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.:
Ahem, Which forces are utterly destroyed? With respect colonel, you are not thinking
straight. An army with supersonic land to sea missiles that are highly accurate will make
minced meat of any fool's ship that dare attack it. The lesson of the last few months is that
Iran is deadly serious about its position that if they cannot sell their oil, no one else
will be able to either. And if the likes of the relatively broadminded colonel have not yet
learned that lesson, then this can only mean that the escalation ladder will continue to be
climbed, rung by rung. Next rung: deep sea port of Yanbu, or, less likely, Ra's Tanura.
That's when the price of oil will really go through the roof and the Chinese (and possibly
one or two of the Europoodles) will start crying Uncle Scam. Nuff Sed.
It sounds like you are getting a little "help" with this. You statement about the result
of a naval confrontation in the Gulf reflects the 19th Century conception that "ships can't
fight forts." that has been many times exploded. You have never seen the amount of firepower
that would be unleashed on Iran from the air and sea. Would the US take casualties? Yes, but
you will be destroyed.
We will have to agree to disagree. But unless I am quite mistaken, the majority view if not
the consensus of informed up to date opinion holds that the surest sign that the US is
getting ready to attack Iran is that it is withdrawing all of its naval power out of the
Persian Gulf, where they would be sitting ducks.
Besides, I don't think it will ever come to that. Not to repeat myself, but taking out
either deep sea ports of Ra's Tanura and/ or Yanbu (on the Red Sea side) will render Saudi
oil exports null and void for the next six months. The havoc that will play with the price of
oil and consequently on oil futures and derivatives will be enough for any president and army
to have to worry about. But if the US would still be foolhardy enough to continue to want to
wage war (i.e. continue its strangulation of Iran, which it has been doing more or less for
the past 40 years), then the Yemeni siege would be broken and there would be a two-pronged
attack from the south and the north, whereby al-Qatif, the Shi'a region of Saudi Arabia where
all the oil and gas is located, will be liberated from their barbaric treatment at the hands
of the takfiri Saudi scum, which of course is completely enabled and only made possible by
the War Criminal Uncle Sam.
AFAIK the only "US naval power" currently is the Abraham Lincoln CSG and I haven't seen any
public info that it was in the Persian Gulf. Aside from the actual straits, I'm not sure of
your "sitting ducks" assertion. First they wouldn't be sitting, and second you have the
problem of a large volume of grey shipping that would complicate the targeting problem. Of
course with a reduced time-of-flight, that also reduces target position uncertainty.
Forts are stationary.
Nothing I have read implies that Iran has a lot of investment in stationary forts.
Millennium Challenge 2002, only the game cannot be restarted once the enemy does not behave
as one hopes. Unlike in scripted war simulations, Opfor can win.
I remember the amount of devastation that was unleashed on another "backwards nation"
Linebackers 1 - 20, battleship salvos chemical defoliants, the Phoenix program, napalm for
dessert.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but that benighted nation was oriental; Iran is a
Caucasian nation full of Caucasian type peoples.
Nothing about this situation is of any benefit to the USA.
We do not need Saudi oil, we do not need Israel to come to the defense of the USA here in
North America, we do not need to stick our dick into the hornet's nest and then wonder why
they sting and it hurts. How many times does Dumb have to win?
3. Also, I can't imagine this event as being a very welcome one for Israeli military
observers, the significance of which is not lost on them, unlike their US counterparts. If
Yemen/ Iran can put the Abqaiq processing plant out of commission for a few weeks, then
obviusly Hezbollah can do the same for the giant petrochemical complex at Haifa, as well as
Dimona, and the control tower at Ben Gurion Airport. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/239251
It was late at night when I wrote this. Yeah, Right. the Iranians could send their massive
ground force into Syria where it would be chewed up by US and Israeli air. Alternatively they
could invade Saudi arabia.
Thank you for the reply but actually I was thinking that an invasion of Afghanistan would be
the more sensible ploy.
To my mind if the Iranian Army sits on its backside then the USAF and IAF will ignore it
to roam the length and breadth of Iran destroying whatever ground targets are on their
long-planned target-list.
Or that Iranian Army can launch itself into Afghanistan, at which point all of the USA
plans for a methodical aerial pummelling of Iran's infrastructure goes out the window as the
USAF scrambles to save the American forces in Afghanistan from being overrun.
Isn't that correct?
So what incentive is there for that Iranian Army to sit around doing nothing?
Iran will do what the USAF isn't expecting it to do, if for no other reason that it upsets
the USA's own game-plan.
There seems to be a bit of a hiatus in proceedings - not in these columns but on the ground
in the ME.
Everyone seems to be waiting for something.
Could this "something" be the decisive word fron our commander in chief Binyamin
Netanyahu?
The thing is he has just pretty much lost an election. Likud might form part of the next
government of Israel but most likely not with him at its head.
Does anyone have any ideas on what the future policy of Israel is likely to be under Gantz
or whoever? Will it be the same, worse or better?
The correct US move would be to ignore an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan and continue
leaving the place. The Iranian Shia can then fight the Sunni jihadi tribesmen.
Oh, I completely agree that if the Iranians launch an invasion of Afghanistan then the only
sensible strategy would be for the US troops to pack up and get out as fast as possible.
But that is "cut and run", which many in Washington would view as a humiliation.
Do you really see the beltway warriors agreeing to that?
A flaw in your otherwise sound argument is that the US military has not been seriously
engaged for several years and has been reconstituting itself with the money Trump has given
them.
Re-positioning of forces does not indicate that a presidential decision for war has been
made. The navy will not want to fight you in the narrow, shallow waters of the Gulf.
I would think that Mr. Trump would have a hard time sell a war with Iran over an attack on
Saudi Arabia. The good question about how would that war end will soon be raised and I doubt
there are many good answers.
The US should have gotten out of that part of the world a long time ago, just as they
should have paid more attention to the warnings in President Eisenhower's farewell
address.
The Perfumed Fops in the DOD restarted Millennium Challenge 2002,because Gen Van Riper had
used 19th and early 20th century tactics and shore based firepower to sink the Blue Teams
carrier forces. There was a script, Van Riper did some adlibbing. Does the US DOD think that
Iran will follow the US script? In a unipolar world maybe the USA could enforce a script,
that world was severely wounded in 1975, took a sucking chest wound during operation Cakewalk
in 2003 and died in Syria in 2015. Too many poles too many powers not enough diplomacy. It
will not end well.
We would crush Iran at some cost to ourselves but the political cost to the anti-globalist
coalition would catastrophic. BTW Trump's "base" isn't big enough to elect him so he cannot
afford to alienate independents.
Even if Rouhani and the Iranian Parliament personally designed, assembled, targeted and
launched the missiles (scarier sounding version of "drones"), then they should be
congratulated, for the Saudi tyrant deserves every bad thing that he gets.
prawnik (Sid) in this particular situation goering's glittering generalization does not
apply. Trump needs a lot of doubting suburbanites to win and a war will not incline them to
vote for him.
Looks like President Trump is walking it back, tweet: I have just instructed the Secretary of
the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!
I doubt there will be armed conflict of any kind.
Everything Trump does from now (including sacking the Bolton millstone) will be directed at
winning 2020, and that will not be aided by entering into some inconclusive low intensity
attrition war.
Iran, on the other hand, will be doing everything it can to increase the chance of a Democrat
administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of
anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
This may be a useful tool for determining their next move, but the limit of their actions
would be when some Democrats begin making the electorally damaging mistake of critising Trump
for not retaliating against Iranian provocations.
This is truly shocking: Trump assassinates diplomatic envoy he
himself arranged for. . If the U.S. lured Soleimani to Iraq with a promise of negotiations
with the Iraqis as mediators and then proceeded to kill him, surely that would be an impeachable
offense. Particularly in view of the failure to brief Congress. If it was Saudi tricked Soleimani
by getting Iraq to "mediate" (Iraq's prime minister was expecting a message by him on the
mediation when he was assassinated), Saudi will get targeted.
The US changed the rules of engagement. They had decided to assassinate Soleimani when he was
in Syria, having just returned from a short journey to Lebanon, before boarding a commercial
flight from Damascus airport to Baghdad. The US killing machine was waiting for him to land in
Baghdad and monitored his movements when he was picked up at the foot of the plane. The US hit
the two cars, carrying Soleimani and the al-Muhandes protection team, when they were still inside
the airport perimeter and were slowing down at the first check-point.
US forces will no longer be safe in Iraq outside protected areas inside the military bases
where they are deployed. A potential danger or hit-man could be lurking at every corner; this
will limit the free movement of US soldiers. Iran would be delighted were the Iraqi groups to
decide to hit the American forces and hunt them wherever they are. This would rekindle memories
of the first clashes between Jaish al-Mahdi and US forces in Najaf in 2004-2005.
Impeachment with GOP support could be just around the corner. And who lost Iraq??? He would
be a dead man walking in that case. I can't see the evangelical crowd saving him. President
Pence. Might have to get use to that.
Here is a link to a twitter account with a good video of massive crowds on the streets of
Mashhad awaiting the arrival of Qassem Suleimani. Very powerful.
There will be no draining of any swamps. Trump-Kushner just another Bibi lackey.
Posted by: Jerry | Jan 5 2020 15:48 utc | 13
1. Draining swamps was a marker of progress in the past. >>Wiki:But in the late
1960s and early 1970s, researchers found that marshes and swamps "were worth billions
annually in wildlife production, groundwater recharge, and for flood, pollution, and erosion
control." This motivated the passage of the 1972 federal Water Pollution Control
Act.<<
2. To recognize this vital role, parties should adopt more acquatic symbols. Caymans are a
bit too similar to alligators, but, say, Alligators vs Snapping Turtles?
Yes, it might just be that this debacle provides the extra impulse to get him removed.
Can't say I can even imagine what that would look like, but there would seem to be a good
argument now that he must be restrained somehow. Somebody needs to tell Pompeous to stop
digging the hole deeper (shutup) too.
"We have learned today from #Iraq Prime Minister AdilAbdl Mahdi how @realDonaldTrump uses
diplomacy:
#US asked #Iraq to mediate with #Iran. Iraq PM asks #QassemSoleimani to come and talk to him
and give him the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport."
To some extent it is not relevant if Trump was lying during his campaign, or has been
corrupted/coopted/fooled/pressured/played for a chump by the establishment. He said one thing
and is doing another: that's the bottom line.
However: I note that after Barack Obama got elected, he immediately fired all of his
populist advisors and hired Wall Streeters even before being sworn in. Obama was clearly
lying up front.
Trump, however, initially did start moving in the direction he said he would, he kept his
populist/nationalist advisors, and really did make actual moves to carry out his campaign
promises. And the establishment went total nut job, he was a Russian agent, his populist
advisers were targeted for legal actions, they were replaced with establishment advisors who
hate him Trump was strong on stage berating a political opponent, but against establishment
pressure he has turned out to be weak, caving in to "the Blob" at every turn.
Had she been elected, Hillary would already have started the neocon wet dream of a war
with Iran.
While that may be true, I am tired of giving Trump a free pass, just because Hillary would
have been worse. Being relatively less evil, or a different incarnation of evil, is still
evil.
Frankly, impeachment was just a distraction to divert attention from the real play. The
dagger at his throat is from far more malevolent foes who can wield both blackmail or death
as the circumstances demand to get their way. The jewish mafia is far more dangerous than the
Sicilian boys could ever hope to be. The latter learned from the former.
The Trump administration has assassinated Iran's top military leader, Qassim Suleimani, and with the possibility of a serious escalation
in violent conflict, it's a good time to think about how propaganda works and train ourselves to avoid accidentally swallowing it.
The Iraq War, the bloodiest and costliest U.S. foreign policy calamity of the 21 st century, happened in part because
the population of the United States was insufficiently cynical about its government and got caught up in a wave of nationalistic
fervor. The same thing happened with World War I and the Vietnam War. Since a U.S./Iran war would be a disaster, it is vital that
everyone make sure they do not accidentally end up repeating the kinds of talking points that make war more likely.
Let us bear in mind, then, some of the basic lessons about war propaganda.
Things are not true because a government official says them.
I do not mean to treat you as stupid by making such a basic point, but plenty of journalists and opposition party politicians
do not understand this point's implications, so it needs to be said over and over. What happens in the leadup to war is that government
officials make claims about the enemy, and then those claims appear in newspapers ("U.S. officials say Saddam poses an imminent threat")
and then in the public consciousness, the "U.S. officials say" part disappears, so that the claim is taken for reality without ever
really being scrutinized. This happens because newspapers are incredibly irresponsible and believe that so long as you attach "Experts
say" or "President says" to a claim, you are off the hook when people end up believing it, because all you did was relay the fact
that a person said a thing, you didn't say it was true. This is the approach the New York Times took to Bush administration allegations
in the leadup to the Iraq War, and it meant that false claims could become headline news just because a high-ranking U.S. official
said them. [UPDATE: here's an example
from Vox, today, of a questionable government claim being magically transformed into a certain fact.]
In the context of Iran, let us consider some things Mike Pence tweeted about Qassim Suleimani:
"[Suleimani] assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September
11 terrorist attacks in the United States Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.
The world is a safer place today because Soleimani is gone."
It is possible, given these tweets, to publish the headline: "Suleimani plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats, says
Pence." That headline is technically true. But you should not publish that headline unless Pence provides some supporting evidence,
because what will happen in the discourse is that people will link to your news story to prove that Suleimani was plotting imminent
attacks.
To see how unsubstantiated claims get spread, let's think about the Afghanistan hijackers bit. David Harsanyi of the National
Review defends
Pence's claim about Suleimani helping the hijackers. Harsanyi cites the 9/11 Commission report, saying that the 9/11 commission
report concluded Iran aided the hijackers. The report
does indeed say that Iran allowed free
travel to some of the men who went on to carry out the 9/11 attacks. (The sentence cut off at the bottom of Harsanyi's screenshot,
however, rather crucially
says : "We have no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.") Harsanyi
admits that the report says absolutely nothing about Suleimani. But he argues that Pence was "mostly right," pointing out that Pence
did not say Iran knew these men would be the hijackers, merely that it allowed them passage.
Let's think about what is going on here. Pence is trying to convince us that Suleimani deserved to die, that it was necessary
for the U.S. to kill him, which will also mean that if Iran retaliates violently, that violence will be because Iran is an aggressive
power rather than because the U.S. just committed an unprovoked atrocity against one of its leaders, dropping a bomb on a popular
Iranian leader. So Pence wants to link Suleimani in your mind with 9/11, in order to get you blood boiling the same way you might
have felt in 2001 as you watched the Twin Towers fall.
There is no evidence that either Iran or Suleimani tried to help these men do 9/11. Harsanyi says that Pence does not technically
allege this. But he doesn't have to! What impression are people going to get from helped the hijackers? Pence hopes you'll
conflate Suleimani and Iran as one entity, then assume that if Iran ever aided these men in any way, it basically did 9/11 even if
it didn't have any clue that was what they were going to do.
This brings us to #2:
Do not be bullied into accepting simple-minded sloganeering
Let's say that, long before Ted Kaczynski began sending bombs through the mail, you once rented him an apartment. This was pure
coincidence. Back then he was just a Berkeley professor, you did not know he would turn out to be the Unabomber. It is, however,
possible, for me to say, and claim I am not technically lying, that you "housed and materially aided the Unabomber." (A friend of
mine once sold his house to the guy who turned out to be the Green River Killer, so this kind of situation does happen.)
Of course, it is incredibly dishonest of me to characterize what you did that way. You rented an apartment to a stranger, yet
I'm implying that you intentionally helped the Unabomber knowing he was the Unabomber. In sane times, people would see me as the
duplicitous one. But the leadup to war is often not a sane time, and these distinctions can get lost. In the Pence claim about Afghanistan,
for it to have any relevance to Suleimani, it would be critical to know (assuming the 9/11 commission report is accurate) whether
Iran actually could have known what the men it allowed to pass would ultimately do, and whether Suleimani was involved. But that
would involve thinking, and War Fever thrives on emotion rather than thought.
There are all kinds of ways in which you can bully people into accepting idiocy. Consider, for example, the statement "Nathan
Robinson thinks it's good to help terrorists who murder civilians." There is a way in which this is actually sort of true: I think
lawyers who aid those accused of terrible crimes do important work. If we are simple-minded and manipulative, we can call that "thinking
it's good to help terrorists," and during periods of War Fever, that's exactly what it will be called. There is a kind of cheap sophistry
that becomes ubiquitous:
I don't think Osama bin Laden should have been killed without an attempt to apprehend him. -- > So you think it's good
that Osama bin Laden was alive?
I think Iraqis were justified in resisting the U.S. invasion with force. -- > So you're saying it's good when U.S. soldiers
die?
I do not believe killing other countries' generals during peacetime is acceptable. -- > So you believe terrorists should
be allowed to operate with impunity.
I remember all this bullshit from my high school years. Opposing the invasion of Iraq meant loving Saddam Hussein and hating America.
Thinking 9/11 was the predictable consequence of U.S. actions meant believing 9/11 was justified. Of course, rational discussion
can expose these as completely unfair mischaracterizations, but every time war fever whips up, rational discussion becomes almost
impossible. In World War I, if you opposed the draft you were undermining your country in a time of war. During Vietnam, if you believed
the North Vietnamese had the more just case, you were a Communist traitor who endorsed every atrocity committed in the name of Ho
Chi Minh, and if you thought John McCain shouldn't have been bombing civilians in the first place then clearly you believed he should
have been tortured and you hated America.
"If you oppose assassinating Suleimani you must love terrorists" will be repeated on Fox News (and probably even on MSNBC).
Nationalism advocate Yoram Hazony
says there is something wrong with those who
do not "feel shame when our country is shamed" -- presumably those who do not feel wounded pride when America is emasculated by our
enemies are weak and pitiful. We should refuse to put up with these kind of cheap slurs, or even to let those who deploy them place
the burden of proof on us to refute them. (In 2004, Democrats worried that they did appear unpatriotic, and so they ran a
decorated war veteran, John Kerry, for president. That didn't work.)
Scrutinize the arguments
Here's Mike Pence again:
"[Suleimani] provided advanced deadly explosively formed projectiles, advanced weaponry, training, and guidance to Iraqi
insurgents used to conduct attacks on U.S. and coalition forces; directly responsible for the death of 603 U.S. service members,
along with thousands of wounded."
I am going to say something that is going to sound controversial if you buy into the kind of simple-minded logic we just
discussed: Saying that someone was "responsible for the deaths of U.S. service members" does not, in and of itself, tell us anything
about whether what they did was right or wrong. In order to believe it did, we would have to believe that the United States is
automatically right, and that countries opposing the United States are automatically wrong. That is indeed the logic that many
nationalists in this country follow; remember that when the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, causing hundreds of deaths,
George H.W. Bush said
that he would never apologize for America, no matter what the facts were. What if America did something wrong? That was
irrelevant, or rather impossible, because to Bush, a thing was right because America did it, even if that thing was the mass murder
of Iranian civilians.
One of the major justifications for murdering Suleimani is that he "caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers." He was thus an aggressor,
and could/should have been killed. That is where people like Pence want you to end your inquiry. But let us remember where those
soldiers were. Were they in Miami? No. They were in Iraq. Why were they in Iraq? Because we illegally invaded and seized a country.
Now, we can debate whether (1) there is actually sufficient evidence of Suleimani's direct involvement and (2) whether these
acts of violence can be justified, but to say that Suleimani has "American blood on his hands" is to say nothing at all without
an examination of whether the United States was in the right.
We have to think clearly in examining the arguments that are being made.
Here 's the Atlantic 's
George Packer on the execution:
"There was a case for killing Major General Qassem Soleimani. For two decades, as the commander of the Revolutionary Guards'
Quds Force, he executed Iran's long game of strategic depth in the Middle East -- arming and guiding proxy militias in Lebanon
and Iraq that became stronger than either state, giving Bashar al-Assad essential support to win the Syrian civil war at the cost
of half a million lives, waging a proxy war in Yemen against the hated Saudis, and repeatedly testing America and its allies with
military actions around the region for which Iran never seemed to pay a military price."
The article goes on to discuss whether this case is outweighed by the pragmatic case against killing him. But wait. Let's dwell
on this. Does this constitute a case for killing him? He assisted Bashar al-Assad. Okay, but presumably then killing Assad
would have been justified too? Is the rule here that our government is allowed unilaterally to execute the officials of other governments
who are responsible for many deaths? Are we the only ones who can do this? Can any government claim the right?
He assisted Yemen in its fight against "the hated Saudis." But is Saudi Arabia being hated for good reason? It is not enough to
say that someone committed violence without analyzing the underlying justice of the parties' relative claims.
Moreover, assumptions are made that if you can prove somebody committed a heinous act, what Trump did is justified. But that doesn't
follow: Unless we throw all law out the window, and extrajudicial punishment is suddenly acceptable, showing that Suleimani was a
war criminal doesn't prove that you can unilaterally kill him with a drone. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. So is George W. Bush.
But they should be captured and tried in a court, not bombed from the sky. The argument that Suleimani was planning imminent
attacks is relevant to whether you can stop him with violence (and requires persuasive proof), but mere allegations of murderous
past acts do not show that extrajudicial killings are legitimate.
It's very easy to come up with superficially persuasive arguments that can justify just about anything. The job of an intelligent
populace is to see whether those arguments can actually withstand scrutiny.
Keep the focus on what matters
"The main question about the strike isn't moral or even legal -- it's strategic." --
The Atlantic
"The real question to ask about the American drone attack that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was not whether it was justified,
but whether it was wise" -- The New York Times
"I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago and why not a month from now?" --
Elizabeth Warren
They're going to try to define the debate for you. Leaving aside the moral questions, is this good strategy? And then you
find yourself arguing on those terms: No, it was bad strategy, it will put "our personnel" in harms way, without noticing that you
are implicitly accepting the sociopathic logic that says "America's interests" are the only ones in the world that matters. This
is how debates about Vietnam went: They were rarely about whether our actions were good for Vietnamese people, but about whether
they were good or bad for us , whether we were squandering U.S. resources and troops in a "fruitless" "mistake." The people
of this country still do not understand the kind of carnage we inflicted on Vietnam because our debates tend to be about whether
things we do are "strategically prudent" rather than whether they are just. The Atlantic calls the strike a "blunder," shifting
the discussion to be about the wisdom of the killing rather than whether it is a choice our country is even permitted to make. "Blunder"
essentially assumes that we are allowed to do these things and the only question is whether it's good for us.
There will be plenty of attempts to distract you with irrelevant issues. We will spent more time talking about whether Trump followed
the right process for war, whether he handled the rollout correctly, and less about whether the underlying action itself is
correct. People like Ben Shapiro will say things
like :
"Barack Obama routinely droned terrorists abroad -- including American citizens -- who presented far less of a threat to
Americans and American interests than Soleimani. So spare me the hysterics about 'assassination."
In order for this to have any bearing on anything, you have to be someone who defends what Obama did. If you are, on the other
hand, someone who belives that Obama, too, assassinated people without due process (which he did), then Shapiro has proved exactly
nothing about whether Trump's actions were legitimate. (Note, too, the presumption that threatening "America's interests" can get
you killed, a standard we would not want any other country using but are happy to use ourselves.)
Emphasis matters
Consider three statements:
"The top priority of a Commander-in-Chief must be to protect Americans and our national security interests. There is no
question that Qassim Suleimani was a threat to that safety and security, and that he masterminded threats and attacks on Americans
and our allies, leading to hundreds of deaths. But there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we
are prepared for the consequences."
"Suleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless
move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority
must be to avoid another costly war."
"When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the country and the
region. Today, 17 years later, that fear has unfortunately turned out to be true. The United States has lost approximately 4,500
brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we've spent trillions on this war. Trump's dangerous escalation brings
us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars. Trump promised
to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one."
These are statements made by Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, respectively. Note that each of them is
consistent with believing Trump's decision was the wrong one, but their emphasis is different. Buttigieg says Suleimani was a
"threat" but that there are "questions," Warren says Suleimani was a "murderer" but that this was "reckless," and Sanders says this
was a "dangerous escalation." It could be that none of these three would have done the same thing themselves, but the emphasis is
vastly different. Buttigieg and Warren lead with condemnation of the dead man, in ways that imply that there was nothing that
unjust about what happened. Sanders does not dwell on Suleimani but instead talks about the dangers of new wars.
We have to be clear and emphatic in our messaging, because so much effort is made to make what should be clear issues appear murky.
If, for example, you gave a speech in 2002 opposing the Iraq War, but the first half was simply a discussion of what a bad and threatening
person Saddam Hussein was, people might actually get the opposite of the impression you want them to get. Buttigieg and Warren,
while they appear to question the president, have the effect of making his action seem reasonable. After all, they admit that he
got rid of a threatening murderer! Sanders admits nothing of the kind: The only thing he says is that Trump has made the world worse.
He puts the emphasis where it matters.
I do not fully like Sanders' statement, because it still talks a bit more about what war means for our people ,
but it does mention destabilization and the total number of lives that can be lost. It is a far more morally clear and powerful antiwar
statement. Buttigieg's is exactly what you'd expect of a Consultant President and it should give us absolutely no confidence that
he would be a powerful voice against a war, should one happen. Warren confirms that she is not an effective advocate for peace. In
a time when there will be pressure for a violent conflict, we need to make sure that our statements are not watery and do not make
needless concessions to the hawks' propaganda.
Imagine how everything would sound if the other side said it.
If you're going to understand the world clearly, you have to kill your nationalistic emotions. An excellent way to do this is
to try to imagine if all the facts were reversed. If Iraq had invaded the United States, and U.S. militias violently resisted, would
it constitute "aggression" for those militias to kill Iraqi soldiers? If Britain funded those U.S. militias, and Iraq killed the
head of the British military with a drone strike, would this constitute "stopping a terrorist"? Of course, in that situation, the
Iraqi government would certainly spin it that way, because governments call everyone who opposes them terrorists. But rationality
requires us not just to examine whether violence has been committed (e.g., whether Suleimani ordered attacks) but what the
full historical context of that violence is, and who truly deserves the "terrorist" label.
Is there anything Suleimani did that hasn't also been done by the CIA? Remember that we actually engineered the overthrow of the
Iranian government, within living people's lifetimes . Would an Iranian have been justified in assassinating the head of the
CIA? I doubt there are many Americans who think they would. I think most Americans would consider this terrorism. But this is because
terrorism is a word that, by definition, cannot apply to things we do, and only applies to the things others do. When you start to
actually reverse the situations in your mind, and see how things look from the other side, you start to fully grasp just how crude
and irrational so much propaganda is.
"It was not an assassination." -- Noah Rothman, conservative commentator
"That's an outrageous thing to say. Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general."
-- Michael Bloomberg, on Bernie Sanders' claim that this was an "assassination"
Our access to much of the world is through language alone. We only see our tiny sliver of the world with our own eyes, much of
the rest of it has to be described in words or shown to us through images. That means it's very easy to manipulate our perceptions.
If you control the flow of information, you can completely alter someone's understanding of the things that they can't see firsthand.
Euphemistic language is always used to cover atrocities. Even the Nazis did not say they were "mass murdering innocent civilians."
They said they were defending themselves from subversive elements, guaranteeing sufficient living space for their people, purifying
their culture, etc. When the United States commits murder, it does not say it is committing murder. It says it is engaging in a stabilization
program and restoring democratic rule. We saw during the recent
Bolivian coup how easy it is
to portray the seizure of power as "democracy" and democracy as tyranny. Euphemistic language has been one of the key tools of murderous
regimes. In fact, many of them probably believe their own language; their specialized vocabulary allows them to inhabit a world of
their own invention where they are good people punishing evil.
Assassination sounds bad. It sounds like something illegitimate, something that would call into question the goodness of the United
States, even if the person being assassinated can be argued to have "deserved it." Thus Rothman and Bloomberg will not even admit
that what the U.S. did here was an assassination, even though we literally targeted a high official from a sovereign country and
dropped a bomb on him. Instead, this is " neutralization
." (Read this fascinatingly feeble attempt
by the Associated Press to explain why it isn't calling an obvious assassination an assassination, just as the media declined to
call torture torture when Bush did it.)
Those of us who want to resist marches to war need to insist on calling things exactly what they are and refuse to allow the country
to slide into the use of language that conceals the reality of our actions.
Remember what people were saying five minutes ago
Five minutes ago, hardly anybody was talking about Suleimani. Now they all speak as if he was Public Enemy #1. Remember how much
you hated that guy? Remember how much damage he did? No, I do not remember, because people like Ben Shapiro only just discovered
their hatred for Suleimani once they had to justify his murder.
During the buildup to a war there is a constant effort to make you forget what things were like a few minutes ago. Before World
War I, Americans lived relatively harmoniously with Germans in their midst. The same thing with Japanese people before World War
II. Then, immediately, they began to hate and fear people who had recently been their neighbors.
Let us say Iran responds to this extrajudicial murder with a colossal act of violent reprisal, after the killing
unifies the country around a demand for vengeance. They kill a high-ranking American official, or wage an attack that kills our
civilians. Perhaps it will attack some of the soldiers that are now being moved into the Middle East. The Trump administration will
then want you to forget that it promised this assassination was to "
stop a war ." It will then
want you to focus solely on Iran's most recent act, to see that as the initial aggression. If the attack is particularly bad,
with family members of victims crying on TV and begging for vengeance, you will be told to look into the face of Iranian evil, and
those of us who are anti-war will be branded as not caring about the victims. Nobody wants you to remember the history of U.S./Iran
relations, the civilians we killed of theirs or the time we destabilized their whole country and got rid of its democracy. They want
you to have a two-second memory, to become a blind and unthinking patriot whose sole thought is the avenging of American blood. Resisting
propaganda requires having a memory, looking back on how things were before and not accepting war as the "new normal."
Listen to the Chomsky on your shoulder.
"It is perfectly insane to suggest the U.S. was the aggressor here." -- Ben Shapiro
They are going to try to convince you that you are insane for asking questions, or for not accepting what the government tells
you. They will put you in topsy-turvy land, where thinking that assassinating foreign officials is "aggression" is not just wrong,
but sheer madness. You will have to try your best to remember what things are, because it is not easy, when everyone says
the emperor has clothes, or that Line A is longer than Line B, or that shocking people to death is fine, to have confidence in your
independent judgment.
This is why I keep a little imaginary Noam
Chomsky sitting on my shoulder at all times. Chomsky helps keep me sane, by cutting through lies and euphemisms and showing things
as they really are. I recommend reading his books, especially during times of war. He never swallowed Johnson's nonsense about Vietnam
or Bush's nonsense about Iraq. And of course they called him insane, anti-American, terrorist-loving, anti-Semitic, blah blah blah.
What I really mean here though is: Listen to the dissidents. They will not appear on television. They will be smeared and treated
as lunatics. But you need them if you are going to be able to resist the absolute barrage of misinformation, or to hear yourself
think over the pounding war drums. Times of War Fever can be wearying, because there is just so much aggression against dissent that
your resistance wears down. This is why a community is so necessary. You may watch people who previously seemed reasonable develop
a pathological bloodlust (mild-mannered moderate types like Thomas Friedman and Brian Williams going suck on our missiles
). Find the people who see clearly and stick close to them.
So Trump instead of draining the swamp brought swamp creatures like Pompeo into his Administration; now he can pay the price.
Notable quotes:
"... The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo ..."
"... "We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook." ..."
"... On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said. ..."
"... One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida. ..."
"... Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations. ..."
"... On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact. ..."
"... "No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat. ..."
"... Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible." ..."
"... At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals. ..."
"... After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target. ..."
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve the
killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence, the officials
said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after
it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes to
Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression
created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.
The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo, but it also carries
multiple serious risks: another protracted regional war in the Middle East; retaliatory assassinations of U.S. personnel stationed
around the world; an
interruption in the battle against the Islamic State; the
closure of diplomatic pathways to containing
Iran's nuclear program; and a major backlash in Iraq, whose parliament
voted on Sunday to expel all U.S. troops from the country.
For Pompeo, whose political ambitions are a source of
constant speculation , the death of U.S. diplomats would be particularly damaging given his unyielding criticisms of former secretary
of state Hillary Clinton following the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and other American personnel in Benghazi in 2012.
But none of those considerations stopped Pompeo from pushing for the targeted strike, U.S. officials said, underscoring a fixation
on Iran that spans 10 years of government service from Congress to the CIA to the State Department.
"We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President
Trump undertook."
Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon
officials were willing to countenance such an operation.
For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration's campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased
tensions with Tehran, requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted
to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.
How the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad unfolded On
Jan. 1, the siege on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad appeared to come to an end after supporters of the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah
militia retreated. (Liz Sly, Joyce Lee, Mustafa Salim/The Washington Post)
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that
mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and
injuring service members.
On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials
presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's
long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran.
One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same
class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed
the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
"Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis," said a senior administration official
who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. "Mattis was opposed to all of this. It's not a hit on Mattis, it's just his
predisposition. Milley and Esper are different. Now you've got a cohesive national security team and you've got a secretary of state
and defense secretary who've known each other their whole adult lives."
Mattis declined to comment.
In the days since the strike, Pompeo has become the voice of the administration on the matter, speaking to allies and making the
public case for the operation. Trump chose Pompeo to appear on all of the Sunday news shows because he "sticks to the line" and "never
gives an inch," an administration official said.
But critics inside and outside the administration have questioned Pompeo's justification for the strike based on his claims that
"dozens if not hundreds" of American lives were at risk.
Lawmakers left classified briefings with U.S. intelligence officials on Friday saying they heard nothing to suggest that the threat
posed by the proxy forces guided by Soleimani had changed substantially in recent months.
When repeatedly pressed on Sunday about the imminent nature of the threats, whether it was days or weeks away, or whether they
had been foiled by the U.S. airstrike, Pompeo dismissed the questions.
"If you're an American in the region, days and weeks -- this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN.
Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he
make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations.
Critics have also questioned how an imminent attack would be foiled by killing Soleimani, who would not have carried out the strike
himself.
"If the attack was going to take place when Soleimani was alive, it is difficult to comprehend why it wouldn't take place now
that he is dead," said Robert Malley, the president of the International Crisis Group and a former Obama administration official.
Following the strike, Pompeo has held back-to-back phone calls with his counterparts around the globe but has received a chilly
reception from European allies, many of whom fear that the attack puts their embassies in Iran and Iraq in jeopardy and has now eliminated
the chance to keep a lid on Iran's nuclear program.
"We have woken up to a more dangerous world," said France's Europe minister, Amelie de Montchalin.
Two European diplomats familiar with the calls said Pompeo expected European leaders to champion the U.S. strike publicly even
though they were never consulted on the decision.
"The U.S. has not helped the Iran situation, and now they want everyone to cheerlead this," one diplomat said.
"Our position over the past few years has been about defending the JCPOA," said the diplomat, referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear
deal.
On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research
and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original
signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact.
"No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat.
Pompeo has slapped back at U.S. allies, saying "the Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did --
what the Americans did -- saved lives in Europe as well," he told Fox News.
Israel has stood out in emphatically cheering the Soleimani operation, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praising
Trump for "acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively."
"Israel stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defense," he said.
Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence
service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and
the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible."
Though Democrats have greeted the strike with skepticism, Republican leaders, who have long viewed Pompeo as a reassuring voice
in the administration, uniformly praised the decision as the eradication of a terrorist who directed the killing of U.S. soldiers
in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
"Soleimani made it his life's work to take the Iranian revolutionary call for death to America and death to Israel and turn them
into action," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.
A critical moment for Pompeo is nearing as he faces growing questions about a potential Senate run, though some GOP insiders say
that decision seems to have stalled. Pompeo has kept in touch with Ward Baker, a political consultant who would probably lead the
operation, and others in McConnell's orbit, about a bid. But Pompeo hasn't committed one way or the other, people familiar with the
conversations said.
Some people close to the secretary say he has mixed feelings about becoming a relatively junior senator from Kansas after leading
the State Department and CIA, but there is little doubt in Pompeo's home state that he could win.
At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular
among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.
After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering
efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target.
At the State Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places the country far above
other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world. "If it's about Iran, he will read it," said one diplomat, referring to the massive flow of paper that crosses Pompeo's desk. "If
it's not, good luck."
Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle
East, but he has now demonstrated very clearly that he is a liar. Instead of seeking detente,
one of his first actions was to end the JCPOA nuclear agreement and re-introduce sanctions
against Iran. In a sense, Iran has from the beginning been the exception to Trump's no-new-war
pledge, a position that might reasonably be directly attributed to his incestuous relationship
with the American Jewish community and in particular derived from his pandering to the
expressed needs of Israel's belligerent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump bears full responsibility for what comes next. The neoconservatives and Israelis are
predictably cheering the result, with Mark Dubowitz of the pro-Israel Foundation for Defense of
Democracies
enthusing that it is "bigger than bin Laden a massive blow to the [Iranian] regime."
Dubowitz, whose credentials as an "Iran expert" are dubious at best, is at least somewhat right
in this case. Qassem Suleimani is, to be sure, charismatic and also very popular in Iran. He is
Iran's most powerful military figure in the entire region, being the principal contact for
proxies and allies in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. But what Dubowitz does not understand is that no
one in a military hierarchy is irreplaceable. Suleimani's aides and high officials in the
intelligence ministry are certainly more than capable of picking up his mantle and continuing
his policies.
In reality, the series of foolish attacks initiated by the United States over the past week
will only hasten the departure of much of the U.S. military from the region. The Pentagon and
White House have been insisting that Iran was behind an alleged Kata'ib Hezbollah attack on a
U.S. installation that then triggered a strike by Washington on claimed militia targets in
Syria and also inside Iraq. Even though the U.S. military presence is as a guest of the Iraqi
government, Washington went ahead with its attack even after the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil
Abdul-Mahdi said "no."
To justify its actions, Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense, went so far as to insist that
"Iran is at war with the whole world," a clear demonstration of just how ignorant the White
House team actually is. The U.S. government characteristically has not provided any evidence
demonstrating either Iranian or Kata'ib involvement in recent developments, but after the
counter-strike killed 26 Iraqi soldiers, the mass demonstrations against the Embassy in Baghdad
became inevitable. The demonstrations were also attributed to Iran by Washington even though
the people in the street were undoubtedly Iraqis.
Now that the U.S. has also killed Suleimani and Muhandis in a drone strike at Baghdad
Airport, clearly accomplished without the approval of the Iraqi government, it is inevitable
that the prime minister will ask American forces to leave. That will in turn make the situation
for the remaining U.S. troops in neighboring Syria untenable. And it will also force other Arab
states in the region to rethink their hosting of U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen due
to the law of unanticipated consequences as it is now clear that Washington has foolishly begun
a war that serves no one's interests.
The blood of the Americans, Iranians and Iraqis who will die in the next few weeks is
clearly on Donald Trump's hands as this war was never inevitable and served no U.S. national
interest. It will surely turn out to be a debacle, as well as devastating for all parties
involved. And it might well, on top of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, be the long-awaited
beginning of the end of America's imperial ambitions. Let us hope so!
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence
officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA
Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter
Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests
The question – who benefits? – has not been raised.
There was no benefit to Kata'ib Hezbollah or the Iranians to attack an American
installation.
There was no benefit to the Iranians to attack the US Embassy in Iraq.
There was no benefit to anyone in Iraq or Iran in the shooting of "peaceful demonstrators" in
Iraq.
There is only one beneficiary to all of the above – Israel.
Mr. Giraldi is quite correct in laying this at Trump's feet and referring to his
incestuous relationship regarding Israel. After all, it it Trump that pulled out of the
JCPOA, and ultimately gave the order to strike. A previous strike was called off, what has
changed? I understand Mr. Giraldi is a never Trumper, and that is his right. Often it is not
what he says, but what he doesn't say, that is problematic. In this article, two things not
expanded stand out to me. The author proclaims his support for the JCPOA.
What is never explained is that the JCPOA was a voluntary restriction, by Iran, on its rights
as a signatory under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Former Reagan nuclear advisor Dr.
Gordon Prather was writing about the illegality of forcing restrictions on Iran back in the
days when "Bonkers" Bolton was foaming at the mouth for Bush 43 at the UN. Trump cancelling
the deal was not the problem. The problem was maintaining the US's illegal position on Iran's
rights under the NPT. Mr. Giraldi's opposition to the cancelling, without context, means he
finds the US's illegal position on Iran's rights under an international treaty as
acceptable.
The second issue is the intelligence surrounding the "alleged Kata'ib Hezbollah attack on a
U.S. installation". This is an operation straight out of the I sraeli S ecret
I ntelligence S ervice manual. It was acknowledged, by the military, 20 years
ago Israel had the capability to stage an attack and blame it on "Arabs". Who were those
involved in providing the "intelligence to Trump? How many of those people know/knew the
intelligence to be questionable or outright false, but allowed it to pass on anyway without
caveat? It is unknown whether Trump "asked the right questions" about the intelligence, and
if it came from military sources, I suspect none at all, of substance, were asked. Again, yes
Trump will, and should, be blamed, but how much of it involves the traitors within who will
continue with the internal rot?
@Bragadocious
You are one of the supreme a-holes on this site and I wish you would go somewhere else to
spread your pollution. But I will answer your question: Soleimani was not near the embassy.
He had flown into to town to attend the funerals of the 26 Iraqi militiamen that we Americans
had killed earlier in the week!
This is a watershed moment in our enslaved country, and the net is rife with speculations as
to where this will lead to.
Personally, I don't believe that this will erupt in WW3, but the days of casual travel by
high-ranking US officials is probably over in the near term. What follows will be millions of
paper cuts and constant stress for our sons and daughters relegated to foreign lands in the
war for Israel. Did you sign up your children to die for Israel? I didn't.
So what can we expect? A lot of our children are going to come back in body bags in the
weeks ahead. The murder of the Iranian general with no proof of his hand in the recent death
of an American mercenary in Iraq, is a war crime – but who's looking? We have become
imitators of our BFF, Israel. Not only have we militarized our police force under their
auspices, we flout International law and civil rights without even blinking once. Sure, many
Iranians (and Iraqi) innocents will die in the process, but the silver lining is that this
will start the dominoes falling and lead to our Vietnam-like exit from the ME with our tail
between our legs, as we repeat the helicopter exits from the roofs of our embassies.
From all indications, the Iranian general was a revered man inside and outside Iran. He
appears to have arrived in Baghdad to attend the funeral of the people killed in the
airstrike by US/Israel. Killing people headed to funerals and weddings seems to have become
our MO in recent years. No US president in the last few decades has had his hands clean. Out
damned spot!
Meanwhile, who was that "killed" contractor? Is there a name attached to that
speculatively fictitious soul whose alleged death was the rationale for the murder? It is a
sign of the times that our first reaction to anything we hear from the PTB is one of
skepticism and disbelief. This does not bode well for our rulers when the slaves reject
whatever claims they make.
Sadly, the revolution will not begin in Pretoria, but in distant lands, far from the
prying eyes of the sleeping citizenry of this land. As Allison Weir would say, if Americans
knew what is being perpetrated in our name, they would realize that we are all
Palestinians.
Trump has been compromised. Whether you believe that he is or isn't behind this, is
irrelevant. Frankly, it doesn't really matter who the president is – he is a powerless
puppet. I suspect that the deep state initiated this and then informed Trump post-facto. The
absence of an immediate tweets (tweet with a US flag suggests speechlessness), followed by an
announcement from the Pentagon that Trump had personally ordered the attack, instead of Trump
boasting about it, does not fit his usual pattern. My guess is that he knows that going
against the will of the deep state would result in his being JFK'ed.
I expect the following in the days ahead:
– There will be outrage in Iraq and demands for us to go home – which we
won't
– Our children/cannon fodder will be targeted across the ME
– One or more US high officials or Military leaders will be assassinated, perhaps
Graham or Pompeo or Adelson
– Israel will use the distraction to annex more Palestinian territory.
– Every US politician will blame the victims
– Israel and KSA will be walking around in adult diapers for the next shoe to drop
Take heart, the end is nigh. It is the witching hour. It is a replay of history as the
empire shoots itself in the foot. Remember which country invented the game of Chess –
it wasn't us or our European cousins.
I read somewhere that the order for this assassination came from Trump himself. I read this
as meaning that the order came from Israel and Trump's staff advised against it. I hope Iran
takes this into account as they plan their retaliation.
The other interesting dynamic is that common folk are waking up to the ZOG on the one hand,
and the government/media is doing their level best to slow this awakening. I wonder how this
assassination and its aftermath fit into all of it.
The one big fear I have in the near-term is that, with the expected retaliation from Iran, it
is the perfect opportunity for Israel to launch a false flag somewhere and blame it on Iran,
further turning up the heat.
Below are some idea from Below are some idea from
OffGuardian that
clrify TT post...
The Saker took a look yesterday at The Soleimani murder – what
could happen next . He thinks, as he has said before, that Trump is regarded as a disposable
asset by his Deep State handlers and is being used as a front man for risky policy actions that
he can be scapegoated for if/when they go wrong.
war with Iran has been the auto-erotic fixation for the hardcore war nuts in Washington for
years, and imminent confrontation has been predicted regularly since at least 2005
Trump administration from the very beginning has been ramping up the tensions (Adelson money
at work): Trump teared up the nuclear deal, re-imposed sanctions, making provocations, making
threats. But this has all been within the familiar framework that always just stops short of
actual conflict. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they have ever
risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag 'terrorism'
as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost certainly
look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they
have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag
'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost
certainly look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond
anything they have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much
false flag 'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we
can almost certainly look forward to some of that.
The major question really though is – will this backtracking and odd claims of wanting
de-escalation actually do anything to de-escalate? Will it persuade Iran not to seek retaliation,
supposing this is now what Pompeo et al want?
It's become a commonplace to describe Trump foreign policy as 'insane', and it's an apposite
description. But the murder of Soleimani takes the evident insanity to new and self-defeating
levels.
Notable quotes:
"... Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we deserve to be labeled as international pariahs. ..."
"... Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US dreams of regional hegemony. ..."
"... According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of anything, but what are the chances? ..."
"... This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the "mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. ..."
"... After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb, invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a lot! ..."
"... IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors. ..."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States had "clear, unambiguous" intelligence that a top
Iranian general was planning a significant campaign of violence against the United States when
it decided to strike him, the top U.S. general said on Friday, warning Soleimani's plots "might
still happen."
Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a small group
of reporters "we fully comprehend the strategic consequences" associated with the strike
against Qassem Soleimani, Tehran's most prominent military commander.
But he said the risk of inaction exceeded the risk that killing him might dramatically
escalate tensions with Tehran. "Is there risk? Damn right, there's risk. But we're working to
mitigate it," Milley said from his Pentagon office. (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
This is pretty much in line with Trump's pronouncement that our assassination of Soleimani
along with Iraqi General Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was carried out to prevent a war not start one.
Whatever information was presented to Trump painted a picture of imminent danger in his mind.
What did the Pentagon see that was so imminent?
Well first let's look at the mindset of the Pentagon concerning our presence in Iraq and
Syria. These two recent quotes from Brett McGurk sums up that mindset.
"If we leave Iraq, that will just increase further the running room for Iran and Shia
militia groups and also the vacuum that will see groups like ISIS fill and we'll be right
back to where we were. So that would be a disaster."
"It's always been Soleimani's strategic game... to get us out of the Middle East. He wants
to see us leave Syria, he wants to see us leave Iraq... I think if we leave Iraq after this,
that would just be a real disastrous outcome..."
McGurk played a visible role in US policy in Iraq and Syria under Bush, Obama and Trump. Now
he's an NBC talking head and a lecturer at Stanford. He could be the poster boy for what many
see as a neocon deep state. He's definitely not alone in thinking this way.
So back to the question of what was the imminent threat. Reuters offers an elaborate story
of a secret meeting of PMU commanders with Soleimani on a rooftop terrace on the Tigris with a
grand view of the US Embassy on the far side of the river.
-- -- -- -- --
"In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi'ite
militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy
complex in Baghdad, and instructed them to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the
country"
"Two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters
that Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful
militia leaders to step up attacks on US targets using sophisticated new weapons provided by
Iran."
"Soleimani's plans to attack US forces aimed to provoke a military response that would
redirect Iraqis' anger towards Iran to the US, according to the sources briefed on the
gathering, Iraqi Shi'ite politicians and government officials close to Iraq PM Adel Abdul
Mahdi."
"At the Baghdad villa, Soleimani told the assembled commanders to form a new militia
group of low-profile paramilitaries - unknown to the United States - who could carry out rocket
attacks on Americans housed at Iraqi military bases." (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran? They were 1960s Chinese
designed 107mm multiple rocket launcher technology. These simple but effective rocket launchers
were mass produced by the Soviet Union, Iran, Turkey and Sudan in addition to China. They've
been used in every conflict since then. The one captured outside of the K1 military base seems
to be locally fabricated, but used Iranian manufactured rockets.
Since when does the PMU have to form another low profile militia unit? The PMU is already
composed of so many militia units it's difficult to keep track of them. There's also nothing
low profile about the Kata'ib Hizbollah, the rumored perpetrators of the K1 rocket attack.
They're as high profile as they come.
Perhaps there's something to this Reuters story, but to me it sounds like another shithouse
rumor. It would make a great scene in a James Bond movie, but it still sounds like a rumor.
There's another story put out by The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Although it also
sounds like a scene form a James Bond movie, I think it sounds more convincing than the Reuters
story.
-- -- -- -- --
Delegation of Arab tribes met with "Soleimani" at the invitation of "Tehran" to carry out
attacks against U.S. Forces east Euphrates
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights learned that a delegation of the Arab tribes met
on the 26th of December 2019, with the goal of directing and uniting forces against U.S.
Forces, and according to the Syrian Observatory's sources, that meeting took place with the
commander of the al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qassim Soleimani, who was
assassinated this morning in a U.S. raid on his convoy in Iraq. the sources reported that: "the
invitation came at the official invitation of Tehran, where Iran invited Faisal al-al-Aazil,
one of the elders of al-Ma'amra clan, in addition to the representative of al-Bo Asi clan the
commander of NDF headquarters in Qamishli Khatib al-Tieb, and the Sheikh of al-Sharayin, Nawaf
al-Bashar, the Sheikh of Harb clan, Mahmoud Mansour al-Akoub, " adding that: "the meeting
discussed carrying out attacks against the American forces and the Syria Democratic
Forces."
Earlier, the head of the Syrian National Security Bureau, Ali Mamlouk, met with the
security committee and about 20 Arab tribal elders and Sheikhs in al-Hasakah, at Qamishli
Airport Hall on the 5th of December 2019, where he demanded the Arab tribes to withdraw their
sons from the ranks of the Syria Democratic Forces. (SOHR)
-- -- -- -- --
I certainly don't automatically give credence to anything Rami sends out of his house in
Coventry. I give this story more credibility only because that is exactly what I would do if
Syria east of the the Euphrates was my UWOA (unconventional warfare operational area). This is
exactly how I would go about ridding the area of the "Great Satan" invaders and making Syria
whole again. The story also includes a lot of named individuals. This can be checked. This
morning Colonel Lang told me some tribes in that region have a Shia history. Perhaps he can
elaborate on that. I've read in several places that Qassim Soleimani knew the tribes in Syria
and Iraq like the back of his hand. This SOHR story makes sense. If Soleimani was working with
the tribes of eastern Syria like he worked with the tribes and militias of Iraq to create the
al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbi, it no doubt scared the bejeezus out of the Pentagon and
endangered their designs for Iraq and Syria.
So, Qassim Soleimani, the Iranian soldier, the competent and patient Iranian soldier, was a
threat to the Pentagon's designs a serious threat. But he was a long term threat, not an
imminent threat. And he was just one soldier.The threat is systemic and remains. The question
of why, in the minds of Trump and his generals, Soleimani had to die this week is something I
will leave for my next post.
A side note on Milley: Whenever I see a photo of him, I am reminded of my old Brigade
Commander in the 25th Infantry Division, Colonel Nathan Vail. They both have the countenance of
a snapping turtle. One of the rehab transfers in my rifle platoon once referred to him as "that
J. Edgar Hoover looking mutha fuka." I had to bite my tongue to keep from breaking out in
laughter. It would have been unseemly for a second lieutenant to openly enjoy such disrespect
by a PV2 and a troublemaking PV2 at that. God bless PV2 Webster, where ever you are.
Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's
contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the
Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The
unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we
are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we
deserve to be labeled as international pariahs.
Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US
dreams of regional hegemony. I was glad we went back into Iraq to take on the threat of IS and
cheered our initial move into Syria to do the same. That was the Sunni-Shia war you worry
about. More accurately, it was a Salafist jihadist-all others war. Unfortunately, we overstayed
the need and our welcome. It's a character flaw that we cannot loosen our grasp on empire no
matter how much it costs us.
Thanks for your post. What it says I buy. We are in the Middle East and have been for a
while to impose regional hegemony. What that has bought us is nebulous at best. Clearly we have
spent trillions and destabilized the region. Millions have been displaced and hundreds of
thousands have been killed and maimed, including thousands of our soldiers. Are we better off
from our invasion of Iraq, toppling Ghaddafi, and attempting to topple Assad using jihadists?
Guys like McGurk, Bolton, Pompeo will say yes. Others like me will say no.
The oil is a canard. We produce more oil than we ever have and it is a fungible commodity.
Will it impact Israel if we pull out our forces? Sure. But it may have a salutary effect that
it may force them to sue for peace. Will the Al Sauds continue to fund jihadi mayhem? Likely
yes, but they'll have to come to some accommodation with the Iranian Shia and recognize their
regional strength.
Our choice is straightforward. Continue down the path of more conflict sinking ever more
trillions that we don't have expecting a different outcome or cut our losses and get out and
let the natural forces of the region assert themselves. I know which path I'll take.
With all due respect, I think you are wrong. I think the protesters swarming the embassy was
exactly the same kind of tactic that US backed protesters used in Ukraine (and are currently
using in Hong Kong) to great effect. The Persians are unique in that they are capable of
studying our methodologies and tactics and appropriating them.
When the US backed protesters took over Maidan square and started taking over various
government building in Kiev, Viktor Yanukovych had two choices - either start shooting
protesters or watch while his authority collapsed. It was and is a difficult choice.
In my
humble opinion, there are few things the stewards of US hegemony fear more than the IRGC
becoming the worlds number one disciple of Gene Sharp.
TTG - "And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran?"
According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the
same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last
year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of
anything, but what are the chances?
If the U.S. only had a Dilyana Gaytandzhieva to bird-dog out the rat line. Wait... the MSM
would have fired her by now for weaponizing journalism against the neocons [sigh].
If a goal is to get the heck out of the Middle East since it is an intractable cess pit and
stat protecting our own borders and internal security, will we be better off with Soleimani out
of the picture or left in place.
Knowing of course, more just like him will sprout quickly, like dragon's teeth, in the sands
of the desert.ME is a tar baby. Fracking our own tar sands is the preferable alternative.
Real war war would be a direct attack on Israel. Then they get our full frontal assault. But
this pissy stuff around the edges is an exercise in futility. 2020 was Trump's to
lose.Incapacity to handle asymmetirc warfare is ours to lose.
There is no necessary link between the Iranian support for the Assad regime, to include its
operations in tribal areas of Syria. The Iranian-backed militias and Iranian government
officials have been operating in that area for a long time, supporting the efforts of
Security/Intel Ali Mamlouk. That Suleimani knew the tribes so well is a mark of his
professional competence. Everyone is courting the Syrian tribes, some sides more adeptly than
others. It is also worth noting that in putting together manpower for their various locally
formed Syrian militias, the Iranians took on unemployed Sunnis.
That said, there are small Ismaili communities in Syria and there are apparently a couple of
villages in Deir ez Zor that did convert to Shiism, but no mass religious change. The Iranians
are sensitive to the fact that they could cause a backlash if they tried hard to promote "an
alien culture."
Well, The Donald has turned to Twitter menacing iran with wiping out all of its World Heritage
Sites....which is declared intention to commit a war crime...
For what it seems Iran must sawllow the assasination of its beloved and highjly regarded
general...or else...
Do you really think there is any explanation for this, whatever Soleimani´s history (
he was doing his duty in his country and neighboring zone...you are...well...everywhere...) or
that we can follow this way with you escalating your threats and crimes ever and that everybody
must leave it at that without response or you menace coming with more ?
That somebody or some news agency has any explanation for this is precisely the sign of our
times and our disgrace. That there is a bunch of greedy people who is willing to do whatever is
needed to prevail and keep being obscenely rich...
BTW, would be interesting to know who are the main holders of shares at Reuters...
The same monopolizing almost each and every MSM and news agency at every palce in the world,
big bank, big pharma, big business, big capital ( insurances companies nad hedge funds ) big
real state, and US think tanks...
In Elora´s opinion, Bret MacGurk is making revanche from Soleimani for the predictable
fact that a humble and pious man bred in the region, who worked as bricklayer to help pay his
father´s debt during his youth, and moreover has an innate irresistible charisma, managed
to connect better with the savage tribes of the ME than such exceptionalist posh theoric bred
at such an exceptionalist as well as far away country like the US.
But...what did you expect, that MacGurk would become Lawrence of Arabia versus Soleimani in
his simpleness?
May be because of that that he deserved being dismembered by a misile...
As Pence blamed shamefully and stonefacelly Soleimani for 9/11, MacGurk blames him too for
having fallen from the heights he was...
It seems that Pence was in the team of four who assesed Trump on this hit...along with
Pompeo...
A good response would be that someone would leak the real truth on 9/11 so as to debunk
Pence´s mega-lie...
Two years ago, the public protest theme for Basel's winter carnival Fashnach was the imminent
threat nuclear war as NK and US were sabre rattling, and NK was lobbing missles across Japan
with sights on West Coast US cities.
Then almost the following week, NK and US planned to meet F2F in Singapore. And we could all
breathe again. In the very early spring of 2018.
This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the
"mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence
claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't
so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in
cahoots with Osama bin Laden.
I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour.
After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist
loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb,
invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our
soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest
rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a
lot!
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how Trump's re-election will go when we are engaged in a
full scale military conflagration in the Middle East? It sure will give Tulsi & Bernie an
excellent environment to promote their anti-neocon message. You can see it in Trump's
ambivalent tweets. On the one hand, I ordered the assassination of Soleimani to prevent a war
(like we needed to burn the village to save it), while on the other hand, we have 52 sites
locked & loaded if you retaliate. Hmmm!! IMO, he has seriously jeapordized his re-election
by falling into the neocon Deep State trap. They never liked him. The coup by law enforcement
& CIA & DNI failed. The impeachment is on its last legs. Voila! Incite him into another
Middle Eastern quagmire against what he campaigned on and won an election.
I would think that Khamanei has no choice but to retaliate. How is anyone's guess? I doubt
he'll order the sinking of a naval vessel patrolling the Gulf or fire missiles into the US base
in Qatar. But assassination....especially in some far off location in Europe or South America?
A targeted bombing here or there? A cyber attack at a critical point. I mean not indiscriminate
acts like the jihadists but highly calculated targets. All seem extremely feasible in our
highly vulnerable and relatively open societies. And they have both the experience and skills
to accomplish them.
If ever you have the inclination, a speculative post on how the escalation ladder could
potentially be climbed would be a fascinating read.
"I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour."
BP,
Yes, indeed. It is a testament to our susceptibility that there is such limited scepticism
by so many people on the pronouncements of our government. Especially considering the decades
long continuous streams of lies and propaganda. The extent and brazenness of the lies have just
gotten worse through my lifetime.
I feel for my grand-children and great-grand children as they now live in society that has
no value for honor. It's all expedience in the search for immediate personal gain.
I am and have been in the minority for decades now. I've always opposed our military
adventurism overseas from Korea to today. I never bought into the domino theory even at the
heights of the Cold War. And I don't buy into the current global hegemony destiny to bring
light to the savages. I've also opposed the build up of the national security surveillance
state as the antithesis of our founding. I am also opposed to the increasing concentration of
market power across every major market segment. It will be the destruction of our
entrepreneurial economy. The partisan duopoly is well past it's sell date. But right now the
majority are still caught up in rancorous battles on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
A question to the committee: what is the source for the claim that Soleimani bears direct
responsibility for the death of over 600 US military personnel?
If that is the case (and it appears to be) then the US govt's claim is nonsense, as it
clearly says " 'During Operation Iraqi Freedom, DoD assessed that at least 603 U.S. personnel
deaths in Iraq were the result of Iran-backed militants,' Navy Cmdr. Sean Robertson, a Pentagon
spokesman, said in an email."
So those figures represent casualties suffered during the US-led military invasion of Iraq
i.e. casualties suffered during a shooting-war.
If Soleimani is a legitimate target for assassination because of the success of his forces
on the battlefield then wouldn't that make Tommy Franks an equally-legitimate target?
Pulitzer Prize winning author of Caliphate, Romanian-American, Rukmini Callimachi, on the
intelligence on Soleimani "imminent threat" being razor-thin.
You just beat me to her thread, Jack. For the Twitter shy, this is the first of a series of 17
tweets as a teaser:
1. I've had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had
intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I've learned. According to
them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is
"razor thin".
IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing
out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the
Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we
think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly
permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors.
"... work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason ..."
"... Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized . ..."
"... The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation! ..."
First, let’s begin by a quick summary of what has taken place (note: this info is still coming in, so there might be corrections
once the official sources make their official statements).
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA .
The Iraqi Parliament has now voted on a resolution requiring the government to press Washington and its allies to withdraw
their troops from Iraq.
Iraq’s caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes
before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.
The Iraqi Parliament has also demanded that the Iraqi government must “ work to end the presence of any foreign troops
on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason “
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of
its sovereignty .
Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go
far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized
.
The Pentagon brass is now laying the responsibility for this monumental disaster on Trump (see
here ). The are now slowly waking up to this immense clusterbleep and don’t want to be held responsible for what is coming
next.
For the first time in the history of Iran, a Red Flag was hoisted over the Holy Dome Of Jamkaran Mosque , Iran. This indicates
that the blood of martyrs has been spilled and that a major battle will now happen . The text in the flag say s “ Oh Hussein we
ask for your help ” (u nofficial translation 1) or “ Rise up and avenge al-Husayn ” (unofficial translation 2)
The US has announced the deployment of 3’000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait .
Finally, the Idiot-in-Chief tweeted the following message , probably to try to reassure his freaked out supporters: “
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World!
If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and
without hesitation! “. Apparently, he still thinks that criminally overspending for 2nd rate military hardware is going to
yield victory…
Analysis
Well, my first though when reading these bullet points is that General Qasem Soleimani has already struck out at Uncle Shmuel
from beyond his grave . What we see here is an immense political disaster unfolding like a slow motion train wreck. Make no mistake,
this is not just a tactical "oopsie", but a major STRATEGIC disaster . Why?
For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void.
Second, the US now has two options:
Fight and sink deep into a catastrophic quagmire or Withdraw from Iraq and lose any possibility to keep forces in Syria
Both of these are very bad because whatever option Uncle Shmuel chooses, he will lost whatever tiny level of credibility he has
left, even amongst his putative "allies" (like the KSA which will now be left nose to nose with a much more powerful Iran than ever
before).
The main problem with the current (and very provisional) outcome is that both the Israel Lobby and the Oil Lobby will now be absolutely
outraged and will demand that the US try to use military power to regime change both Iraq and Iran.
Needless to say, that ain't happening (only ignorant and incurable flag-wavers believe the silly claptrap about the US armed forces
being "THE BEST").
Furthermore, it is clear that by it's latest terrorist action the USA has now declared war on BOTH Iraq and Iran.
This is so important that I need to repeat it again:
The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure , with BOTH Iraq and Iran.
I hasten to add that the US is also at war with most of the Muslim world (and most definitely all Shias, including Hezbollah and
the Yemeni Houthis).
Next, I want to mention the increase in US troop numbers in the Middle-East. An additional 3'000 soldiers from the 82nd AB is
what would be needed to support evacuations and to provide a reserve force for the Marines already sent in. This is NOWHERE NEAR
the kind of troop numbers the US would need to fight a war with either Iraq or Iran.
Finally, there are some who think that the US will try to invade Iran. Well, with a commander in chief as narcissistically delusional
as Trump, I would never say "never" but, frankly, I don't think that anybody at the Pentagon would be willing to obey such an order.
So no, a ground invasion is not in the cards and, if it ever becomes an realistic option we would first see a massive increase in
the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan).
No, what the US will do if/when they attack Iran is what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006, but at a much larger scale. They will
begin by a huge number of airstrikes (missiles and aircraft) to hit:
Iranian air defenses Iranian command posts and Iranian civilian and military leaders Symbolic targets (like nuclear installations
and high visibility units like the IRGC) Iranian navy and coastal defenses Crucial civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges,
hospitals, radio/TV stations, food storage, pharmaceutical installations, schools, historical monuments and, let's not forget that
one, foreign embassies of countries who support Iran). The way this will be justified will be the same as what was done to Serbia:
a "destruction of critical regime infrastructure" (what else is new?!)
Then, within about 24-48 hours the US President will go on air an announce to the world that it is "mission accomplished" and
that "THE BEST" military forces in the galaxy have taught a lesson to the "Mollahs". There will be dances in the streets of Tel Aviv
and Jerusalem (right until the moment the Iranian missiles will start dropping from the sky. At which point the dances will be replaced
by screams about a "2nd Hitler" and the "Holocaust").
Then all hell will break loose (I have discussed that so often in the past that I won't go into details here).
In conclusion, I want to mention something more personal about the people of the US.
Roughly speaking, there are two main groups which I observed during my many years of life in the USA.
Group one : is the TV-watching imbeciles who think that the talking heads on the idiot box actually share real knowledge and expertise.
As a result, their thinking goes along the following lines: " yeah, yeah, say what you want, but if the mollahs make a wrong move,
we will simply nuke them; a few neutron bombs will take care of these sand niggers ". And if asked about the ethics of this stance,
the usual answer is a " f**k them! they messed with the wrong guys, now they will get their asses kicked ".
Group two : is a much quieter group. It includes both people who see themselves as liberals and conservatives. They are totally
horrified and they feel a silent rage against the US political elites. Friends, there are A LOT of US Americans out there who are
truly horrified by what is done in their name and who feel absolutely powerless to do anything about it. I don't know about the young
soldiers who are now being sent to the Middle-East, but I know a lot of former servicemen who know the truth about war and about
THE BEST military in the history of the galaxy and they are also absolutely horrified.
I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong.
I am now signing off but I will try to update you here as soon as any important info comes in.
The Saker
UPDATE1 : according to the Russian website Colonel
Cassad , Moqtada al-Sadr has officially made the following demands to the Iraqi government:
Immediately break the cooperation agreement with the United States. Close the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Close all U.S. military bases
in Iraq. Criminalize any cooperation with the United States. To ensure the protection of Iraqi embassies. Officially boycott American
products.
Cassad (aka Boris Rozhin) also posted this excellent caricature:
UPDATE3 : al-Manar reports that two rockets have landed near the US embassy in Baghdad.
UPDATE4 :
Zerohedge
is reporting that Iranian state TV broadcasted an appeal made during the funeral procession in which a speaker said that each
Iranian ought to send one dollar per person (total 80'000'000 dollars) as a bounty for the killing of Donald Trump. I am trying to
get a confirmation from Iran about this.
UPDATE5 : Russian sources claim that all Iranian rocket forces have been put on combat alert.
UPDATE6 : the Russian heavy rocket cruiser "Marshal Ustinov" has cross the Bosphorus and has entered the Mediterranean.
The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA
Order Now The Essential Saker II: Civilizational
Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear
who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation
policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please
be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.
(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.
(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:
a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:
a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant
to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more
quickly.
and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in
Name of your link
(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs: You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated. The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will
look like before you send it.
(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA.
If this is true, it makes America's murder of General Soleimani even more outrageous. This would be like the USA sending an
American regime official to some other country for a negotiation only to have him/her drone striked in the process!
America reveals its malign character as even more sick that even its opponents have thought possible.
Perhaps, Iran should request that Mike Pompeo come to Baghdad for a negotiation about General Soleimani 's murder and then
"bug splat" Pompeo's fat ass from a drone!
"For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void."
-I actually read somewhere that the Iraqi government is just a caretaker government and even thought it voted to remove foreign
forces, it is not actually legally binding.
I'm no lawyer. I don't see why that would matter. If a caretaker government is presented with a crisis, why would it not have
the authority to act?
That said, It could be the line the US government chooses to use to insist its presence is still legal. If course the MSM will
repeat and repeat and make it seem real.
Couldn't agree more. When I read that my jaw dropped and I'm sure my eyes went huge. I just couldn't believe they could be that
stupid, or that immoral, that sunk in utter utter depravity. They truly are those who have not one shred of decency, and thus
have no way of recognising or understanding what decency is. Pure psychopath – an inability to grasp the emotions, values, and
world view of those who are normal. This truly is beyond the pale, and this above everything else will ensure the revenge the
heartbroken people of Iran are seeking. May God bless them.
The US Armed Forces do not need to be 'THE BEST". All they need is mountains of second rate ordinance to re-bury Iraq bury Iran
under rubble. They can then keep their forces in tightly fortified compounds and bomb the c**p out of any one who wants to 'steal
their oil', or any one who wants to 'steal the land promised by God to the Chosen People'. The U.S. has always previously been
limited in their avarice for destruction by their desire to be viewed as the 'good guy'. This limitation has now been stripped
away. There is now nothing to stop the AngloZionist entity except naked force in return.
"realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not
more (depending on the actual plan)."
Yes, but these are not part of a single force, many of these are more a target than a threat. Besides, they need to be concentrated
into a a few single forces to actually participate in an invasion.
The Saker
To understand troop size and relevance think along these lines. For every US front line soldier there will be 5 others in support
roles, logistics etc. So for every front line fighting Marine there will be 5 others who got him there and who support him in
his work. 10,000 front line fighting troops means 50,000 troops shipping out to the borders of Iran. I think perhaps you would
need 100,000 US front line troops for an invasion AND occupation (because we all know if they go in they aren't going to leave
quickly) We're talking about half a million US troops, this simply isn't going to happen for multiple reasons, not least they
need to amass at some form of base (probably Iraq – yeah right) maybe Kuwait? They'd just be a constant sitting target. Saker
is correct in that if this goes down it's going to be an air campaign (will the Iranians use the S300s they have?) and possibly
Navy supported. the Israelis will help out but in turn make themselves targets at home for rocket attacks. Again I can't see it
happening, it would take too long to arrange plus from the moment it kicks off every US base, individual is just a target to the
majority of anti US forces spread across the whole middle east. I expect back door diplomacy, probably to little effect, and a
ham fisted token blitz of cruise missiles and drone bombs at Iranian infrastructure, sadly this will not work for the Americans,
we will have a long running campaign on ME ground but also mass terrorist activity across the US and some of its allies. Its a
best guess scenario but if that plays out whatever happens to Iran this war will be another long running death by a 1000 cuts
for the US and will guarantee Trump does not get re-elected.
Whoever sold this to Trump (Bolton via Pompeo? Bibi?) has really lit the touch paper of ruin. Yes it stinks of Netanyahoo but
it also reaks of full strength neocon, Bolton style. Trump is dumb enough to fall for it and obviously did.
1. To read the Colonel Cassad website in English or any other language, just go to
https://translate.yandex.com/ and then paste in the Cassad URL, which
is given above but again, it's https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/
The really nice thing is that when you click on links, Yandex Translate automatically translates those links. Two problems, though.
1. For some unknown reason, Yandex always first translates Cassad as English-to-Russian, and then you have to click on a little
window near the top left, to again request Russian-to-English and then it translates everything fine. I do not experience this
problem when using Yandex on any other website. 2. Unlike what Benders-Lee intended when he invented the web browser, the "back
button" almost doesn't work on Yandex Translate. So always right-click to open links in a new tab.
2. The US could probably carry out a large number of air attacks, but the Iranian response would be to destroy all the Gulf
oil facilities AND everything worth bombing in Israel. This potential for offense is Iran's best defense, and, I think, the main
reason why there hasn't been a war. Iran's air defense missiles are probably more effective than the lying MSM will admit, and
might shoot down a large percentage of the humans and aluminum the US would throw at Iran, but it's a matter of attrition, and
Iran would suffer grave damage. We can't rule out that that might be the plan since the Empire is run by psychopaths. A US Army
elite training manual, from 2012 in Kansas, implied that by 2020, Europe would not be a major power. Perhaps they were thinking
that Europe would go out of business from a lack of Persian Gulf oil.
3. As for a ground war against Iran, I don't think the US or even the US with the former NATO coalition, would have any hope
and they know it. A real invasion force would require at least 250,000 troops, probably 500,000, maybe more. 80 million very determined
and united Iranians, many of whom who don't fear martyrdom, would make the Vietnam War look like a bad picnic with fire ants
. Yes, Vietnam had jungle for guerillas to hide behind, but South Vietnamese society was divided and many supported the Americans.
Iran has no such division. Even the Arab province of Khuzestan would stand united, knowing how the Shiite Arabs are mistreated
in the Eastern Province and in Kuwait.
Count me in as part of group two. As a former U.S. Army service member I can assure anyone reading this that this action is an
historic strategic mistake. What the Saker has outlined above is very likely. There is most probably no way to walk back now.
Who in the ME would negotiate with the U.S. Government? Their perfidy is well known. Many citizen in this country feel like they
are held hostage by a government that doesn't represent their interests or feelings. I hope the people in the ME know this.
Since the folks in the ME know that the US is a "pretend democracy" they also realize that the people of the USA are just as oppressed
by the AngloZionist regime as the people abroad. Frankly, I have traveled on a lot of countries and I have never come across anything
like real hostility towards the US American people. The very same people who hate Uncle Shmuel very much enjoy US music, literature,
movies, novel ideas, etc. I believe that the Empire is truly hated across the globe, but not the people of the USA.
Kind regards
The Saker
As long as people of the USA tolerate their government criminal activities around the world, and this is happening for last 70
years, I don't agree with your comment. These crimes are commited in the name of people of the USA, who are doing nothing to prevent
them. As for movies coming from US, most of them are propaganda about 'exceptional nation'. No thanks.
The United States of America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. That being said, the fall elections are going
to be of significant interest.
Couldn't agree with you less Saker. They share the spoils of war, generation after generation. From the killing of indigenous
population to neocolonial resource extraction today, they get their cut. You cannot have it both ways, enjoying the spoils of
war and hiding behind invalid rationalizations, pretending you have no-thingz to do with that.
Russian TV says that there were anti-war demonstrations in 80 (!) US cities.
I don't have the time to check whether this is true, but it sure sounds credible to me.
The Saker
This information is true. I personally took part in the march in Denver, Colorado. I would estimate we had about 500 people,
which is a lot more than most anti-war protests have ever gotten in recent memory.
Do not count out the possibility of a sudden large and massive anti-war movement suddenly springing out of nowhere.
Unfortunately, I do not see how "peaceful" protests will accomplish anything on their own. Rioting may be necessary. The system
needs to be shut down and commerce slow to a crawl so that nobody may ignore this.
I agree that there will first be a period of violent confusion, followed by -- well, what sane person even wants to think about
what possible horrors lie ahead?
The threat of one or more spectacular false flag attacks to further fan the flames would also appear to be a possibility.
Real evil has been unleashed, that is clear. The empire has decided to fight, and to fight very dirty.
Wasn't the Saker working in the employ of the US or NATO when they attacked Srbija without cause? Because that was my understanding.
Actually, no. I was working at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.
But thanks for showing everybody how ugly, petty and clueless ad hominem using trolls can be!
The Saker
"I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong."
My personal observation is unfortunately the opposite. I think the population that is over 40 is probably leans 80% toward
the TV-watching imbecile category with zero critical thinking abilities and exposure to four plus decades of propaganda. The population
under 40 is largely too apathetic to have an opinion and unwilling to engage in research.
History will most likely play out in disaster resulting from a corrupt ruling class, systemic institutional rot, and brain-washed
public not realizing what's happened.
I will hazard a guess and say there are far more men than women in Group 1, and many more draft-age young adults of both sexes
in Group 2.
But by and large a disturbing number of people in America regard world events as being akin to a football game, with Team A
and Team B and a score to be kept. If things don't appear to be going well for their "team," they speak and behave irrationally,
with crass statements like "nuke the whole place and turn it into a glass parking lot." Impressive, isn't it? Grown adults, comporting
themselves like overindulged little children, always accustomed to getting their way – and displaying a terrifying willingness
to set the whole house on fire when they don't.
It is a spiritual illness which pollutes the USA. Terrible things will have to happen before the society can become well, again
Even if only 20% of the population join us, that will be enough. Because guess what? The TV-watching imbeciles are fat, lazy,
and they won't do anything to support the government either, and they definitely aren't brave enough to get in the way of an angry
mob
It's interesting to me, this comment of Sakers'. I have been thinking, with these revelations of the utter depravity and total
lack of what was once called "honour " and treating the enemy with respect, of a few instances which seemed to show me that not
all of America was like this.
There is a scene in the much loved but short lived** TV series "Firefly" in which the rebel "outsider" spaceship Captain offers
a doctor on the run a berth with them. The Doctor says "but you dont like me. You could kill me in my sleep" to which the Captain
replies "Son, you dont know me yet, So let me tell you know, If i ever try to kill you, you will be awake, you will be facing
me, and you will be armed"
Exactly I thought. There is a Code of Honour by which battles used to be fought. This latest by US has shown how low it's Ruling
Regime is, that is doesn't not see that. But from examples like the above, I gathered that there are people in America who still
hold to it closely – and that's good to know.
** Short lived because it showed as it's heroes a group of people who lived outside the Ruling Tyrannical Regime, who had fought
for Independence and lost, and now lived "by their wits" and not always according to law. Not surprising that the rulers of US
weren't going to allow that to go to air!!
Unfortunately I believe the largest group in the USA is the "nuke 'em group". All of my friends watch Fox and none have an understanding
of the empire.
Sake thank you as always for your excellent work. What do you think Iran will attack first?
Thanks Saker for this discussion/information space you provide when nothing is very trustworthy and on what is a holiday week
end for you.
Two points:
Never underestimate the perfidy of the Kurds. They held back on the censure/withdrawal vote in the Iraqi\
parliament and are probably offering withdrawal airport space for US military.
And Agreed, about most Americans being absolutely horrified and ashamed.Even Alex Jones had to put Syrian Girl on and to post
her on video.banned. One of his callers demanded that Alex apologize to his listening audience on "bended knee" for his support
of Trump's attack on Iran. When Alex tried to schmooze
the irate caller -- The man started yelling -- "Who cares, Alex, who cares about Iran my neighbors have no jobs
and are dying from drug overdoses. who cares about Israel? Let them take care of themselves."
Trump has sealed his own fate on many levels and ours her in looneylandia. It is said that a nation gets the leadership it
deserves. We are about to become a nation of the yard-sale.
Whew, this is something to chew on and try to digest. That first point jumped right off the page. General Soleimani was on an
official diplomatic mission, requested by the U.S.! They set him up and were waiting for him to get in his car at the airport
and go onto the road.
The entire world will know there is no way to justify this. It is just as ugly as the public murder of JFK. They have zero credibility
in all they say and do. It will be interesting to see who supports what is coming and who have gotten the message from this murder
and have decided they cannot support this beast.
How many missiles does the us have in the middle east?
How many air defense missiles does have iran?
Does iran have the ability to destroy us airbases to prevent aircraft from attacking iranian territory? That would be my first
move: destroying the ennemy s fighter jets while they are still on the ground.
How many missiles does iran can launch ? How far can they hit?
I think these are important questions if we want to make a good assessment of the situation
Thank you for the continuing courageous, fact-based reporting.
All as-yet-unenslaved-minds of the oppressed people living under the auspices of the empire share the horror of what has happened,
made worse so, for I personally, learning the evil duplicity of the 'fake' diplomacy of the masters of the U.S.A. administration.
If there had been any credibility whatsoever, left for the U.S.A. diplomatic integrity, it is now completely murdered.
I should like to point out, yet again, the perverse obviousness of the utter subordination of the utterly testiclesless
america n ' leadership ' by the affiliates, dually loyal extra-nationals, aligned to the quasi-nation of
pychopathic hatred against humanity.
In spite of, and now increasingly because of, the absurd perception management/propaganda agencies, completely controlled by
this aforementioned affiliation, and their ongoing absurd efforts, people are becoming aware of the ultimate source of the hatred
and agenda we re witnessing in the ME, and indeed, in ever country under the auspices of the empire.
It is becoming impossible to cover, even for the most timid followers of the citizens of empire-controlled nation states.
The war continues against the non-subliminated citizens, and will certainly escalate as the traction of the perception-management
techniques have been pushed way over their best-before date.
Even not wanting to know this, people are becoming aware of it.
I urge all those self-identifying with this affiliation of secretive hatred against humanity to disavow either publicly, or
privately, this collective of hatred.
The recusement of the fifth-column will undermine these machinations.
It is now the time to realize that no promise of superior upward mobility, in exchange for activities supporting the affiliation,
is worth the stark prospect of complete destruction of the biosphere.
Saker: what makes you think it will just be a couple of days of bombing? I would have thought they would set up a no fly zone
then fly over that country permanently blowing the shit out of any military thing on the ground until the gov collapses.
Iran doesn't have the ability to prevent this & running a country under these conditions is impossible.
Set up a no-fly zone over Iran? Iran is well aware of American air-power. They have a multi-layer air defense. And I wouldn't
be surprised that the Iranian's are capable of taking out U.S. satellites.
Iran knows their enemy. They have been preparing for conflict with the U.S. for 40 years. This is a sophisticated, and highly
advanced nation, with brilliant leadership. They understand what their weaknesses are, and what their strengths are.
The wild cards are threefold: Russia. China. North Korea. If one wants to think about the possible asymmetrical capabilities
of those three, let alone the pure power their militaries, it boggles the mind.
Prediction: The U.S. stands down on orders of their own military. People like John Bolton quietly pass away in their sleep.
The only no fly zone to be implemented will be on all american warplanes over Iran and Iraq. Do you remember the multimillion
drone that went down? Multipliy it by hundreds of manned planes. God, how delusional can you be?!!!
You have a fighting force that is a disgrace composed by little girls that start screeming once they get bullets flying over their
heads. You have aircraft battle groups that are sitting ducks waitng to go to the bottom of the sea. Wake up and get your pills,
man!
Paul23, from where will the aircraft take off to implement your "no-fly zone"? Any air base within 2,000 km would be destroyed
by a shower of cruise missiles and possibly drones.
It is Group 1 -- loud, reactionary, extremely vulgar, militant parasites -- which defines the US national character. Exceptional
and indispensable simply mean "entitled to other peoples' natural resources and labour output". Trying to reason with these lowlives
is a waste of time. Putin understands this; hence the new Russian weapons. The latter will be needed very soon.
Americans are a good people but America is one of the most heavily propagandized nations in the world. The media is corrupt.
The educational systems teach a sanitized version of history. But that is only a part of it.
Pro-Military propaganda is everywhere. Even before the Superbowl, jet bombers fly over the stadium – as if Militarism constituted
a basic American value. At Airports, "Military Personnel" are given preferential boarding. At retail stores customers are asked
to make donations to "military families." College football games are dedicated to "Military Appreciation Day." High Schools work
in unison with Military Recruiters to steer students into the Military. Even playground facilities for children that have video
displays display pro military messages. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Most of this propaganda is paid for out of the obscene military budget. The average citizen doesn't have a chance.
Americans are a good people, if they really knew what was being done in their name, they would put a stop to it.
Militant parasites do live in a world of total lies, deception, and delusion but never at the expense of their survival
instincts. US imperial coercion, mayhem, and murder globally are absolutely crucial to the American way of life, and the 99% know
it. Their living standards would drop enormously without the imperial loot. Thus, they dearly yearn for all the repression, war,
and chauvinism they vote for and more.
One thing is telling, at least for me. Who the f in the right state of mind kills other state's official and then admits of doing
it?!? The common sense sense tells me that you do something and to avoid bigger consequences you stay quet and deny everything.
Just like CIA is doing. Trump just put US military personnel in grave danger. We know how they accused Manning for showing the
to the world US war crimes. They put him in the jail for what Trump just did. But, I cannot believe that they are that much stupid.
If US does not want war, as Trump is saying, they could have done this and then blame someone else because now it has been shown
that they wanted to "talk" to Iran, as Iraqis PM said. At least, US brought new meaning to the word "talk"
The most damaging, no most devestating, assymetrical attack on the US would be a 'non violent' attack.
Let me quickly explain.
It has been well known since the exposure of the man behind the curtain during the great financial crisis of 2007-08 that all
Human operations – all Human life in fact – is financialised in some way.
Some ways being so sophisticated or 'subtle' that barely 1 person in 1000 is even aware, much less capable of understanding
them, much less the financial control grid (and state / deepstate power base) which empoverishs them and enslaves them to an endless
cycle of aquiring and spending 'money'.
Look deeply and the wise will see how 'Human resources' (as opposed to Human Beings) are herded like cattle to be worked on
the farm, 'fleeced', or slaughtered as appropriate to the money masters.
We have been programmed, trained, and conditioned to call 'currency units' (dollar/euro/pound/yuan, etc) 'money', when they
are actually nothing of the sort, they are state or bank issued money substitutes.
In the middle east and north africa some leaders recognised this determined how to escape slavery and subjegation. They attempted
to field this knowledge like an economic-nuke, but without the massive protection required, and they were destroyed by the empire
– Sadam Hussain with his oil for Gold (and oil for Euros) program, and Col. Gadaffi of Libya with his North African 'Gold Dinar'
and 'Silver Durham' Islamic money program.
To cut a very long story short – the evil empire depends upon all nations and peoples excepting thier pieces of paper currency
units as 'real' money – which the empire print / create in unlimited quantities to fund thier war machine and global progrram
of domination.
All financial markets are either denominated or settled in US Dollars (or are at least convertable).
All Nations Central Banks (except Irans I believe) are linked via various US Dollar exchange / liquidity mechanisms, and all
'settle' in US Dollars.
Currently all nations use US controlled electronic banking communications / exchange / tranfer systems (swift being the most
well known).
Would it therefore not make sence to go for the very beating heart of the Beast – the US financial system?
The most powerful attack against the empire would therefore be against this power base – the global reserve currency – the
US dollar – and the US ability to print any quantity of it (or create digits on a screen and call them 'Dollar Units').
It would be pointless trying to fight an emnemy capable of printing for free enough currency to buy every resource (including
peoples lives) – unless that super ability was destroyed or disrupted.
Example of a massive nuclear equivilent attack on the beast would be an internal and major disrruption of interbank electronic
communications (at all levels from cash machine operation and card payment readers up to interbank transfers and federal banking
operations).
Shut down the US banking system and you shut down the US war machine.
Not only that you shut down the US ability to buy resources and bribe powerful leaders – which means they wont be able to recover
from such a blow quickly.
Shutting down banking and electronic payments of all kinds would cause the US people – particularly those currently enjoying
bread and circus distraction and pacification – to tear appart thier own communities, and each other, as the spoiled and gready
fight for the remaining resources, including food and fuel.
The 'grid' has been studied in great depth by both Russia and China (and Israel as part of thier neo-sampson option) and we
can therefore deduce that Iran has some knowledge of how it works and where the weak links are (and not just the undersea optical
cables and wireless nodes).
I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar.
Reducing the US to an empoverished 3rd world state by taking its check book away would be a worthy and lasting revenge and
humiliation.
" I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar. "
No, the best way would be for each nation to ditch the intertwined, privately ( Rothschild ) controlled central banks, and
to return to printing their own money. Anything, short of that will just perpetuate the same system from a different home base
( nation ), most likely China next. This virus can jump hosts and it will given a chance.
Who knows what will happen, but an actual boots on the ground invasion of Iran will not happen. Iran is not Irak and things have
changed since that war.
US does not have 6 to 12 months to gather it's forces and logistics for an invasion (remember, the election is coming), plus
US no longer has the heavy lift assets to do this. Toss in the fact that Iran is now on a war footing and has allies in the general
AO, hired RoRo's and other logistics and supply assets will be targets before they get anywhere near the ports or beaches to off
load. Plus, you can kiss oil goodbye, Iran will close the straights a nanosecond after the first bomb is in the air.
An air assault such as Serbia will be very expensive, Iran will fight back from the first bomb if not before, and Iran has
a pretty viable air defense system and the missiles to make life miserable for any cluster of troops and logistics within roughly
300 kilometers of the borders if not longer. Look at a map. There is a long border between Iran and Irak, but as such and considering
the terrain, any viable ground attack has to come from Irak territory. With millions of Iraki's seething at what Uncle Sugar just
did and millions of Iranians seething at what Uncle Sugar just did, any invading troops will not be greeted with showers spring
blossoms. To paraphrase a quote, 'You will be safe nowhere, our land will be your grave.'
Toss in the fact that an invasion of Irak, if even half successful, will put American troops on a war footing perilously close
to Russian territory and possibly directly on the Russian Lake, aka Caspian Sea, and sovereign territory of Russia. Won't happen,
VVP will not allow it.
Ergo, in spite of all the bluster and chest beating, at best all Foggy Bottom can do is bomb, bomb some more and bomb again.
The cost in airframes and captured pilots will be a disaster and if RoRo's and other logistic heavy lift assets or bases are hit,
the body bags coming back to Dover will be of numbers that can not be hidden as they are today with explanations that the dead
are victims of training accidents or air accidents.
Foggy Bottom, and Five Points with Langley, have painted themselves in to a corner and unfortunately for them, (and it's within
the realm of possibility that Five Points egged Trump on for this deal regardless of their protestations of innocence and surprise)
they are now in a case of put up or shut up. As a point of honor they will continue down the spiral path of open warfare and war
is like a cow voiding it's watery bowels, it splatters far beyond the intended target.
As my friend said a few years ago, damn you, damn your eyes, damn your souls, damn you back to Satan whose spawn you are. Go
back to your fetid master and leave us in peace.
Never The Last One, paper back edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521849056
A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.
"UPDATE2: RT is reporting that "One US service member, two contractors killed in Al-Shabaab attack in Kenya, two DoD personnel
injured". Which just goes to prove my point that spontaneous attacks are what we will be seeing first and that the retaliation
promised by Iran will only come later."
Saker, Some of us might be curious to know what your experience with the UN Institute for Disarmament Research informs you about
the imminent Virginia gun bans and confiscations planned for this year and next. Can Empire afford to fight an actual shooting
war on two fronts, one externally against Iraq/Iran and the second internally against its own people, some of whom will paradoxically
be called away to fight on the first front? Perhaps the two conflicts could become conjoined as Uncle Shmuel mislabels every peaceful
gun owner who just wants to be left alone as a foreign enemy-sympathizer and combatant by default, thereby turning brother against
brother in a bloody prolonged hell in the regions immediately around Washington DC? Could the Empire *truly* be that suicidal?
'Mr. Trump, the Gambler! Know that we are near you, in places that don't come to your mind. We are near you in places that you
can't even imagine. We are a nation of martyrdom. We are the nation of Imam Hussein You are well aware of our power and capabilities
in the region. You know how powerful we are in asymmetrical warfare You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities.
You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end '
Gen. Soleimani (2018)
Hello Saker,
I would like to ask you a question.
According to the Russian nuclear doctrine "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the
use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against itself or its allies and also in response to large-scale aggression
involving conventional weapons in situations that are critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies."
In your opinion does Russia consider Iran such an ally? Will Russia shield Iran against USAn / Israeli nuclear strikes? In case
of an imminent nuclear strike on Iran is Russia (and possibly others) going to issue a nuclear ultimatum to the would-be aggressor?
And in case an actual nuclear attack on Iran happens is Russia going to retaliate / deter further attacks with its own nukes?
What is your opinion?
One thing: please do not start explaining why the above scenario is completely unthinkable, unrealistic and why it would never
ever happen. I need your opinion on the possible events if such an attack does take place or it is about to happen. I do not need
reasons why it would not happen; I need your opinion what might take place if it does happen. If you cannot answer my question,
have no opinion or simply do not want to answer it please let me know it.
In case there is a formal commitment by Russia – one I know not of – when, where was it made?
Thanks in advance.
I think USA still has nuclear option.
They will not hesitate to use it on Iran if Israel is in danger.
So, I think Iran shall be defeated anyway, as USA is much stronger.
Wrong. If the US uses nukes, then this will secure the total victory of Iran.
The Saker
How does this secure a total victory, dear Saker? Please help my to understand this: Nukes on every major city, industrial site,
infrastructure with pos. millions dead – how is this a victory?
I think that if Iran were to launch some devastating missiles into Israel, either a US ship/submarine or Israel will launch a
nuclear bomb into Iran. The US knows there is nothing to be gained by a ground invasion. If we [the US] were to start launching
missiles into Iran, Iran would rightfully be launching sophisticated arms back toward US ships and Israel and the US can't stand
for that. We are good at dishing it out, but lousy at receiving it.
I can only believe we assassinated Solieman [apologies] because it is the writhing of a dying petrodollar. The US is desperate.
But I don't understand how going to war is supposed to help?
"Beijing's ties with Tehran are crucial to its energy and geopolitical strategies, and with Moscow also in the mix, a broader
conflagration is a real possibility"
Last but not least, Happy Nativity to all Orthodox Christians (thanks for the beautifully illustrated Orthodox calendar, The
Saker.)
Let us all pray for peace.
Trump is the King of the South. Killing under a flag of parley is a rare thing these days and is the reason why Trump will end
up going to war with no allies by his side just like the path mapped oit for him in Daniel.
It's not a blunder.
Trump's goals pre-assassination:
1) withdraw US troops from the ME ("Fortress America") and
2) placate Israel
This is how it is done. Not a direct "hey guys, we have to bring the boys home." Trump tried that and got smashed by the Deep
State and Israel. Instead, he is going to force the Islamic world to do the talking for him by refusing to host our pariah army
(that's all they have to do, not destroy a major US base or two). Then even the Deep State will admit it's a lost cause. He can
say he did all he could while achieving his goals.
As The Saker pointed out, the troops being sent now are to evacuate, not to conquer Tehran. Next time this year the US will have
its troops home and Trump will be reelected
Looks like Trump administration buried the Treaty of non-proliferation once and for all. From now on only a country with
nuclear weapons can be viewed as a sovereign country.
Notable quotes:
"... To remind the reader once more, however, none of this would be happening had Iran not abandoned its "nuclear ambiguity" by agreeing to the 2015 Rouhani-Obama deal, with that event in hindsight being the tripwire that provoked the American military into wantonly escalating tensions with Iran ..."
"... Because they realized that the maximum costs that the Islamic Republic could inflict on it in response to their actions could be "manageable". ..."
"... The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the possession of nuclear weapons safeguards a country's sovereignty by enabling it to inflict "unmanageable"/"unacceptable" costs on its foes and thus deter their aggression, failing which leaders on both sides can be manipulated into a serious crisis. ..."
Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is
being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither
men can afford to do so, which makes it likely that a lot more people than just Maj. Gen.
Soleimani might be about to die.
To remind the reader once more, however, none of this would be happening had Iran not
abandoned its "nuclear ambiguity" by agreeing to the 2015 Rouhani-Obama deal, with that event
in hindsight being the tripwire that provoked the American military into wantonly escalating
tensions with Iran (despite believing that they're doing so in "self-defense)
Because they realized that the maximum costs that the Islamic Republic could inflict
on it in response to their actions could be "manageable".
The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the possession of nuclear weapons
safeguards a country's sovereignty by enabling it to inflict "unmanageable"/"unacceptable"
costs on its foes and thus deter their aggression, failing which leaders on both sides can be
manipulated into a serious crisis.
This will end great, a fucked up circus called congress who hasn't had the balls to do their
job and legally declare war for nearly three decades, and a president who can't even defend
himself from a gang of thugs staging a direct coup against him in his own government. What
could possibly go wrong?
The second are the immortal words of Thucydides: "the strong do what they will, the weak
suffer what they must."
Yeah, I heard Thucydides had some issues with resolution of uncertainties for targeting,
especially for stand-off precision guided weapons. Plus there were some issues with long
range air-defense systems in Greece in times of Plato and Socrates. You know, GLONASS wasn't
fully operational, plus EW was a little bit scratchy.
So, surely, it all fully applies today, especially in choke points. Plus those Athenians
they were not exactly good with RPGs and anti-Armour operations. Other than that, Thucydides
nailed it.
Interesting to note that it was the party professing those words - Athens - who started
the Peloponnesian War, driven in large part by that haughty attitude. It was Athens that also ended that war, of course. They did so when they surrendered to the Spartans.
Now we understand that it was Adelson money talking for Trump, when he campaigned in 2016 on
the platform of hostility of Iran and abandonment of the nuclear deal.
While derail who and how ordered the assassination, one thing it clear: Trump no longer
deserve re-election. He is yet another Hillary now. Any of Dem opponents excluding Biden, who is
dead fish in any case, are better then Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump campaigned on belligerence toward Iran and trashing the Obama-led Iran nuclear deal, and he has followed through on those threats, filling his administration with the most vile, hawkish figures in the U.S. national security establishment. After appointing notorious warmonger John Bolton as national security adviser, Trump fired him last September. But despite reports that Trump had soured on Bolton because of his interventionist posture toward Iran, Bolton's firing merely opened the door for the equally belligerent Mike Pompeo to take over the administration's Iran policy at the State Department. ..."
"... Now Pompeo is the public face of the Suleimani assassination, while for his part, the fired Bolton didn't want to be left out of the gruesome victory lap: ..."
"... Trump, who had no idea who Qassim Suleimani was until it was explained to him live on the radio by conservative journalist Hugh Hewitt in 2015, didn't seem to need many details to know that he wanted to crush the Iranian state. ..."
"... Much as the neoconservatives came to power in 2001 after the election of George W. Bush with the goal of regime change in Iraq, Trump in his bumbling way assembled a team of extremists who viewed him as their best chance of wiping the Islamic Republic of Iran off the map. ..."
"... Assassination has been a central component of U.S. policy for many decades, though it has been whitewashed and normalized throughout history, most recently with Obama's favored term, "targeted killings." ..."
"... While many Democratic politicians are offering their concerns about the consequences of Suleimani's assassination, they are prefacing it with remarks about how atrocious Suleimani was. Framing his assassination that way ultimately benefits the extremist cabal of foreign policy hawks who agitated for this very moment to arrive. There's no justification for assassinating foreign officials, including Suleimani. This is an aggressive act of war, an offensive act committed by the U.S. on the sovereign territory of a third country, Iraq. This assassination and the potential for a war it raises are, unfortunately, consistent with more than half a century of U.S. aggression against Iran and Iraq. ..."
"... Five months ago, California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited this very type of action, but it was removed from the final bill. "Any member who voted for the NDAA -- a blank check -- can't now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East," Khanna wrote on Twitter after Suleimani's assassination. "My Amendment, which was stripped, would have cut off $$ for any offensive attack against Iran including against officials like Soleimani." ..."
"... Trump is responsible for whatever comes next. But time and again, the worst foreign policy atrocities of his presidency have been enabled by the very politicians who claim to want him removed from office ..."
While the media focus for three years of the Trump presidency has centered around "Russia
collusion" and impeachment, the most dangerous collusion of all was happening right out in the
open -- the Trump/Saudi/Israel/UAE
drive to war with Iran .
On August 3, 2016 -- just three months before Donald Trump would win the Electoral College
vote and ascend to power -- Blackwater founder Erik Prince arranged a meeting at Trump Tower.
For decades, Prince had been agitating for a war with Iran and, as early as 2010, had developed
a fantastical proposal for using mercenaries to wage it.
At this meeting was George Nader, an American citizen who had a long history of being a
quiet emissary for the United States in the Middle East. Nader, who had also worked for
Blackwater and Prince, was a convicted pedophile in the Czech Republic and is facing similar
allegations in the United States. Nader worked as an adviser for the Emirati royals and has
close ties to Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince. Join Our NewsletterOriginal reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in There was also an
Israeli at the Trump Tower meeting: Joel Zamel. He was there supposedly pitching a
multimillion-dollar social media manipulation campaign to the Trump team. Zamel's company,
Psy-Group, boasts of employing former Israeli intelligence operatives. Nader and Zamel were
joined by Donald Trump Jr. According to the New York Times, the purpose of the meeting
was "primarily to offer help to the Trump team, and it forged relationships between the men and
Trump insiders that would develop over the coming months, past the election and well into
President Trump's first year in office."
One major common goal ran through the agendas of all the participants in this Trump Tower
meeting: regime change in Iran. Trump campaigned on belligerence toward Iran and trashing
the Obama-led Iran nuclear deal, and he has followed through on those threats, filling his
administration with the most vile, hawkish figures in the U.S. national security establishment.
After appointing notorious warmonger John Bolton as national security adviser, Trump fired him
last September. But despite reports that Trump had soured on Bolton because of his
interventionist posture toward Iran, Bolton's firing merely opened the door for the equally
belligerent Mike Pompeo to take over the administration's Iran policy at the State
Department.
Now Pompeo is the public face of the Suleimani assassination, while for his part, the
fired Bolton didn't want to be left out of the gruesome victory lap:
Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this
was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the
first step to regime change in Tehran.
Trump, who had
no idea who Qassim Suleimani was until it was explained to him live on the radio by
conservative journalist Hugh Hewitt in 2015, didn't seem to need many details to know that he
wanted to crush the Iranian state.
Much as the neoconservatives came to power in 2001 after the election of George W. Bush
with the goal of regime change in Iraq, Trump in his bumbling way assembled a team of
extremists who viewed him as their best chance of wiping the Islamic Republic of Iran off the
map.
While Barack Obama provided crucial military and intelligence support for Saudi Arabia's
scorched earth campaign in Yemen, which killed untold numbers of civilians, Trump escalated
that mass murder in a blatant effort to draw Iran militarily into a conflict. That was the
agenda of the gulf monarchies and Israel, and it coincided neatly with the neoconservative
dreams of overthrowing the Iranian government. As the U.S. and Saudi Arabia intensified their
military attacks in Yemen, Iran began to insert itself more and more forcefully into Yemeni
affairs, though Tehran was careful not to be tricked into offering this Trump/Saudi/UAE/Israel
coalition a justification for wider war.
Protesters shout slogans against the United States and Israel as they hold posters with the
image of top Iranian commander Qassim Suleimani, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq,
and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during a demonstration in the Kashmiri town of Magam on
Jan. 3, 2020.
Photo: Tauseef Mustafa/AFP/Getty Images The assassination of Suleimani -- a popular figure
in Iran who is viewed as one of the major drivers of ISIS's defeat in Iraq -- was one of only a
handful of actions that the U.S. could have taken that would almost certainly lead to a war
with Iran. This assassination, reportedly ordered directly by Trump, was advocated by the most
dangerous and extreme players in the U.S. foreign policy establishment with that exact
intent.
Assassination has been a central component of U.S. policy for many decades, though it
has been whitewashed and normalized throughout history, most recently with Obama's favored
term, "targeted killings." The U.S. Congress has intentionally never legislated the issue
of assassination. Lawmakers have avoided even defining the word "assassination." While every
president since Gerald Ford has upheld an executive order banning assassinations by U.S.
personnel, they have each carried out assassinations with little to no congressional outcry.
Read Our Complete
Coverage The Iran Cables In 1976, following Church Committee recommendations regarding
allegations of assassination plots carried out by U.S. intelligence agencies, Ford signed an
executive order banning "political assassination." Jimmy Carter subsequently issued a new order
strengthening the prohibition by dropping the word "political" and extending it to include
persons "employed by or acting on behalf of the United States." In 1981, Ronald Reagan signed
Executive Order 12333, which remains in effect today. The language seems clear enough: "No
person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or
conspire to engage in, assassination."
As I
wrote in August 2017, reflecting on our Drone Papers series from two years earlier, "The
Obama administration, by institutionalizing a policy of drone-based killings of individuals
judged to pose a threat to national security -- without indictment or trial, through secret
processes -- bequeathed to our political culture, and thus to Donald Trump, a policy of
assassination, in direct violation of Executive Order 12333 and, moreover, the Fifth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution. To date, at least seven U.S. citizens are known to have been killed
under this policy, including a 16-year-old boy. Only one American, the radical preacher Anwar
al-Awlaki, was said to have been the 'intended target' of a strike."
There's no justification for assassinating foreign officials, including Suleimani.
While many Democratic politicians are offering their concerns about the
consequences of Suleimani's assassination, they are prefacing it with remarks about how
atrocious Suleimani was. Framing his assassination that way ultimately benefits the extremist
cabal of foreign policy hawks who agitated for this very moment to arrive. There's no
justification for assassinating foreign officials, including Suleimani. This is an aggressive
act of war, an offensive act committed by the U.S. on the sovereign territory of a third
country, Iraq. This assassination and the potential for a war it raises are, unfortunately,
consistent with more than half a century of U.S. aggression against Iran and Iraq.
For three years, many Democrats have told the country that Trump is the gravest threat to a
democratic system we have faced. And yet many leading Democrats have voted consistently to give
Trump unprecedented military budgets and surveillance powers.
Five months ago, California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna offered an amendment to the
National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited this very type of action, but it
was removed from the final bill. "Any member who voted for the NDAA -- a blank check -- can't
now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East," Khanna
wrote
on Twitter after Suleimani's assassination. "My Amendment, which was stripped, would have cut
off $$ for any offensive attack against Iran including against officials like
Soleimani."
Trump is responsible for whatever comes next. But time and again, the worst foreign
policy atrocities of his presidency have been enabled by the very politicians who claim to want
him removed from office . Wait! Before you go on about your day, ask yourself: How likely
is it that the story you just read would have been produced by a different news outlet if The
Intercept hadn't done it? Consider what the world of media would look like without The
Intercept. Who would hold party elites accountable to the values they proclaim to have? How
many covert wars, miscarriages of justice, and dystopian technologies would remain hidden if
our reporters weren't on the beat? The kind of reporting we do is essential to democracy, but
it is not easy, cheap, or profitable. The Intercept is an independent nonprofit news outlet. We
don't have ads, so we depend on our members -- 35,000 and counting -- to help us hold the
powerful to account. Joining is simple and doesn't need to cost a lot: You can become a
sustaining member for as little as $3 or $5 a month. That's all it takes to support the
journalism you rely on.
"... Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country. ..."
"... The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country? ..."
"... What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers. ..."
"... "We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran." Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country which does not honor the most basic of international law? ..."
"... Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'. ..."
"... Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary executions...What you make of this? https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some other think tankers.. ..."
"... Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be. On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work. ..."
Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword. He met
a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that he was a BAD
MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile. Were all those who
fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Sitting
Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN? Let us not be juvenile.
The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a member
of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we killed an Iraqi
general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.
We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb" elections.
That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in
international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things that we have
"paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands them as hirelings
of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.
Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to
yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country.
The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of
al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country?
Will we go if they vote that way? We should. If we do not, then we will be exposed as
imperialist hypocrites.
Trump should welcome such a vote. He wants to get out of the ME? What greater opportunity
could we have to do so?
Let us leave if invited to go. Let the oh, so clever locals deal with their own hatreds and
rivalries. pl
What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on
Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers.
But...Elora guesses you are being rhetorical here...because... if he would have died by
the sword...would not have he had the opportunity to defend himself against his
enemy/opponent?
Instead...he was caught on surprise...unarmed...and hit by an overwhelming force...he was
going to some funerals...
"We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent
ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran."
Tulsi Gabbard.
Some impressive images worth thousands words...just to remember everybody that this man was
an appreciated human being...doing his duty....for his motherland...and his God....
To better understand the pain of that elderly yazidi woman in the video, some testimony by
Rania Khalek on the role of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis ( the other militia commander killed who is
being as well slandered as terrorist along Soleimani ...) in stopping yazidi genocide in Iraq
when nobody else was giving a damn, less any help, for this people...
Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have
no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign
country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country
which does not honor the most basic of international law?
And am I alone to be disgusted to see the senior members of our government lie blatantly
and constantly, when they're not fellating the nearest likudnik....
We go where we are wanted and appreciated. We have no skin in Iraq. Build the Wall and
protect our own borders. Concentrate our resources on cyber-security.
Tulsi makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately that disqualifies her for the presidency, not
because she couldn't execute the functions of the presidency, but because neither the party
apparatchiks nor the voters would give her the chance. These days either nationalistic
claptrap or promises of more freebies are what carry the day. Quelle domage, eh?
As for the Iraqi parliament voting to expel U.S. forces? That's an interesting question. If
they did, they'd better vote to expel the "den of spies" at the embassy and insist on our
having a normal sized legation (as all countries would be well advised to do). But if they
do, would we leave? I personally doubt it even though it would be best if we did and let the
Iraqis do what they will, which would probably be reverting back to some sort of strongman
govt, of a type more suited to their cultural traditions and inclinations. It's high time we
afforded the rest of the world the type of cultural and political autonomy we claim to revere
so much.
So, we leave? A good thing for us and for them and the world at large.
Or, we don't? Then we expose the truth the rest of the world already knows, but we at least
expose the truth to our own people who have been fed a steady diet of mendacious BS about
what we've been doing over there all these years.
That attack on the "airport limo" vehicles leaving Baghdad airport sure took some nerve on
our part to think that we could sell something like that...
And, did Trump actually order it, or did someone else in the MIC order it first and Trump
laid claim to it afterwards? Uncle Joe, if he had ordered it, would have afterwards announced
the execution of a fall guy and denied any complicity! If Trump didn't order it, he should
throw whoever did under the bus instead of crowing and wrapping himself in the flag. I wonder
about what actually happened in planning this hit job on prominent military people on their
way to a funeral for 31 people who may or may not have had anything whatsoever to do with the
death of a single American mercenary in Iraq in an attack by persons unknown on a small
outpost.
It's times like this I wish I was a fly on the wall, listening to what the Russian General
Staff conversations regarding this assassination are at this moment.
Trump IMHO would do well to seek Putin's counsel on how to exit the corner that Trump has
backed US into. While this spells problems for our US, it also creates additional problems
for Russia in the ways that could cause them MAJOR problem as well as in a full blown Mideast
War with many players in the mix. Not a good mix either.
Israel can't handle a full blown Mideast War, no matter how much their narcissistic
national psyche thinks they can. Israel is a mere postage stamp in a sea of rage, which
tsunami waves could very easily consume them. Sheldon Adelson and his Likud/NEOCON blowhards
have no concept of what is on the short horizon, that can go one way or the other.
I'm glad I'm retired in this instance. My glass of bourbon is more palatable than the
grains of Mideast sand that fixing to get stirred up.
God help us all.
Pat, why does the US military always get left with the shit-storms to clean up after?
Why?
Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to
Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the
dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who
believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'.
I can hear the talking points already ...
1. 'Obama made the same mistake and it created ISIS.'
2. 'Iran has taken over Iraq, it's not a legitimate request' (look at how we selectively
recognize govts in South America and no one blinks).
3. 'Iran will use Iraq as a base to attack us' (yeah, its about 100 miles closer).
I can't stand what we have become, the jackals have taken over and the MSM attacks the
very few who are not jackals.
OK. Who do you think would have had the power to order the strike? Not the CIA, the
military would not accept such an order. Not the chairman of the JCS, he is not in the chain
of command. That leaves Esper, SECDEF. Really? He looks like a putschist to you? You are
ignorant of the American government.
Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary
executions...What you make of this?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some
other think tankers..
Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by
the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no
different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and
his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be.
On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work.
Iran should probably be very careful not to overplay his hand. The time in working it its favor.
Notable quotes:
"... Lavrov said in June 2019 "Those who rely on inciting tension between Arabs and Persians, Arabs and Kurds, and inside the Arab world – between the Sunnis and the Shiites, are not guided by the interests of the peoples of the region, but by their own narrow geopolitical motives." ..."
"... USA has not legally declared war on Iran. This is murder. Murder of an Iranian Government employee. He may also have been covered by a diplomatic passport. If he is (I don't know) this has major repercussions for Diplomatic immunity. ..."
"... The USA 'new' unilateral principle is that any official in any country may now be murdered by the USA government at the whim of the President of the day. ..."
"... The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic sanctions warfare. ..."
The subject is 'revenge' and what Iranian authorities may or may not do.
The 'big picture' is re-building the security (and well-being) of ordinary Iranian,
Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni people - and all other decent people of the Middle East and beyond.
Tribal reaction is deep and strong. We all know and experience that. But to achieve 'the big picture' the first instinctive hind-brain reaction must be set
aside - or at least, allowed to 'recede'. Of course there must be re-balancing, which carries with it a feeling of vindication, if
not revenge.
Lavrov said in June 2019 "Those who rely on inciting tension between Arabs and Persians,
Arabs and Kurds, and inside the Arab world – between the Sunnis and the Shiites, are
not guided by the interests of the peoples of the region, but by their own narrow
geopolitical motives."
Well the USA Government is guilty must apologise publicly and humbly. Compensation must be
paid.
Dialogue started.
USA has not legally declared war on Iran. This is murder. Murder of an Iranian Government
employee. He may also have been covered by a diplomatic passport. If he is (I don't know)
this has major repercussions for Diplomatic immunity.
The USA 'new' unilateral principle is that any official in any country may now be murdered
by the USA government at the whim of the President of the day.
Clearly, decent people in USA need to campaign to limit Presidential powers. Revenge creates a spiral of escalation which becomes a vortex of destruction, perhaps
global. How does that improve peoples daily lives?
The duty of government is ensuring the security of its people. Does 'revenge' achieve this
in the years ahead? It is the instinctive option, yes, but is it the BEST long term
option?
In the end, parties must meet, compensation paid, and the hard slow work of building
acceptable inter-state relations based on rule of law and the UN Charter re-commenced.
In my view, there is no other option that meets the long term need of ordinary people.
But building this requires special people. Not wreckers and haters.
Will the urgency of the situation see them emerge?
@ Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 4 2020 22:18 utc | 84
Thank you. Someone making sense. Most are talking about this like it's halftime in a
sporting match - completely juvenile.
Iran needs to pull back and focus on making themselves stronger in economy and technology
and for strong ties with other responsible players. They have opportunities with many
countries which are increasingly disenchanted with the west. And the west is headed for an
economic beating - which explains the desperate behavior.
Even if Iran is very careful in their behavior Irael is going to continue to press for war
- the psychotic fears most those that he has attacked.
But maybe with careful behavior and planning and efforts to repair and maintain ties the
Iraninans could be ready for that eventuality.
Espen and Trump have made it clear that they will hold Iran responsible for whatever may
happen in the region and that they will strike in response or preemptively. Essentially, that
makes the real Iranian reaction largely irrelevant. And Israel could create a false flag
incident #a la USS Liberty. Or some rogue groups that Iran cannot control might attack US
troops or installations. Whether by design or accident, there will be a pretext to base
another military strike against Iran on. And then another, until a full blown US-Iran war
erupts which Bibi, Lieberman & co so desperately want.
Years of relentless demonization of Iran in the US and the UK have brainwashed large swaths
of the population. They will accept a war against Iran, albeit reluctantly, as long as not
too many Americans get killed in its wake.
I don't believe for a second that the US would "accept" a limited retaliation. They will
jump at any opportunity. Lindsey Graham stands between Trump and impeachment and that
warmonger is on record for seeking to bomb Iran's oil refineries. Incidentally, he was the
only senator who Trump consulted prior to the murder. Could well be that Graham is right now
the real P0TUS , at least until the senate has voted on impeachment. Conveniently, pelosi has
put the impeachment on hold, thereby prolonging that situation. Coincidence? I don't think
so.
Maybe the Israelis/neocons fear that Trump might lose in November and want to start the
war while Bibi's favorite lapdog is still P0TUS. Not, that the Democrats are peacelovers
(except for Sanders and Gabbard). But they might be more afraid of a negative reaction by the
electorate.
Murdering Suleimani NOW was not some hasty decision without a plan. I am afraid, it was done
to get THE ultimate war in the middle east going, no matter if and how much restraint Iran
will show.
I do think, btw that Trump blew his reelection by killing Suleimani. Another warmonger
will assuredly take his place.
After reading what Magnier has to say, a reasonable guess is that although emotions are
running high currently, Irans leadership will likely concentrate omn the work that must be
done during such a period, which is to (attempt to) influence the Iraqi parliamentry vote on
the continued presence of United States forces. As some have pointed out, this may lead to a
US retreat to the Kurdish areas, but even that can only be considered a victory, with
consequent practically free movement of Iranian military supplies to their allies in Syria
and Lebanon. With this development hopefully secured there is then plenty of time to
precisely calibrate any further responce to a level where dignity is preserved, without
necessarily bringing the wider ME area into further strife. Any waiting period is also useful
in further building up capability where needed, specifically in the case where US aggression
continues as it has done so far. US leaders seem not to appreciate that their showy
applications of force don't win them friends locally, and could eventually succeed in
unifying Iraq in a way Iran never could on its own.
This may have been referenced before, and b's previous post begins with a description of the
importance of Soleimani, but here is a further link for those who are still in doubt as to
his significance for everyone in the region:
I will also add from a post by Active Patriot at the Saker site: "...if Iran is a
friend and ally to Iraq and Syria they would not craft a response which drags either of those
2 countries deeper into more war and hardship."
Solameini's martyrdom is surely recognized as such by all in the ME who have suffered and
are suffering the century-long occupation/meddling/manipulating/lying that Western powers
have inflicted on the whole ME since before the Great War---now with the USA in the lead.
(One of Churchill's war aims in WW1 was to destroy the Ottoman Empire and grab as much of it
as Britain could grab. Then of course there was the Balfour Declaration crime.)
What is the "purpose" of martyrdom if it is not to galvanize action of some kind? To
galvanize a dramatic quantum leap in consciousness of the meaning of the martyr's
sacrifice---of his martyrdom. Surely Solameini will be seen to have died *for* something. For
what?
Perhaps to inspire a new setting aside of existing local conflicts to form an effective
front to *eject* the foreign virus from the body of the whole ME? To create a new coalition
among all citizens of all faiths in all of the besieged ME countries to oust the "crusaders"?
Didn't Nasser aspire to take charge of his region via the United *Arab* Republics? What about
United Sovereign Nations from the Levant to the Hindu Kush. And, make things uncomfortable
for Erdogan if he continues to host American Air Force?
Just wondering.
Also, what is Kurdish reaction to this murder? Kurds seem to be an element standing in the
way of unity of purpose in the ME.
1) Get a list of your favorite sites, then do a DNS lookup on their names, and put those
IP addresses in a HOSTS
file . If a site appears to go offline, try the IP address. If that doesn't work either,
well...
2) I have an old laptop that has wifi and an ethernet port, and it runs an older version
of Linux Mint. I wish I had an older version, and I may start looking. The more recent the
operating system (any!), the more likely it will have backdoors or some other 'critter'
running about and working against you.
3) If you have the hardware and some friends nearby, start an out-of-band neighborhood
network. This, as I envision it (with limited oracular ability, mind you), can be like the
Little Free
Library - just an accumulation of stuff each person has saved over the years, or whatever
can be obtained, and scanned if necessary. Wifi can work for this short-term, but plan to
bury multiple cables eventually. DO NOT EVER (knowingly) CONNECT THIS NETWORK TO THE
INTERNET!!!
4) Start planning for long-term storage of important books. Niven's novel Lucifer's Hammer describes
one character's efforts in this direction - he sunk a huge library of important 'civilization
cranking' books in a cesspool on a neighbor's property.
There's more, but we've a broad spectrum of things to consider at the moment, so I'll not
hog the thread.
As a matter of standing up and showing some jackasses in this thread that US citizens aren't
all Rambo...
I, Thomas James Kenney, hereby publicly state that it is my opinion the only way out of
this mess (and the only chance to save some semblance of a country) is to very publicly try
and imprison these vermin for high treason. They have committed an act that runs counter to
every attempted description of civilized behavior ever written.
It is also my considered opinion that it is not necessary for Iran to do anything at all.
Simply stay the course. We are almost bled out in this disintegrating 'republic', and people
around me are conversing about ways to disconnect from some of the toxic facets of this
society. There is not much support for a war, despite what the 'required 20%' continue to
scream.
The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based
on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq
and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic
sanctions warfare.
The death and maiming and poisoning of millions of Iraqis has been the
American contribution to Iraq, over the last several decades. What for? How has this helped
the United States? Or Europe? The main advocates for this supreme criminality has been the
Israel lobby, Israel, and the supporters of Israel.
The American Apache helicopters are still buzzing around over Baghdad, dealing out terror
and intimidation and death. The murder by the United States of yet more Iraqi soldiers and
officials recently has been largely absent from the propaganda narratives. But could those be
'the final straw'?
As far as Trump's 52 target threat, this comes after the apparent please don't escalate
and we'll make a deal - good cop-bad cop routine.
The 52 number was used to remind mind-controlled Americans that the evil Iranians
outrageously took 52 Americans hostage. American's don't just take people hostage; they give
them orange suits and torture them, unless they kill them. Apart from murdering and maiming
by the millions, they even stage fictional killings, like Osama bin laden, to entertain the
zombies, and stick out their chests, hand out medals and the like.
Just a reminder: Iran is not an Arabic country.
And many non-Arabs and non-Muslims live in ME countries (I am not counting Is as an ME
country in this context).
Which is why I express hope of perhaps a broader regional coalition.
The shooting down of flight 655 was a criminal act of manslaughter that should've brought
charges against the people responsible. But does b really consider destroying another plane
of civilians a justified retribution?
I wonder if Putin will force Trump to stop the escalation and show remorse to Iran before
any revenge happens.
The new US defense bill, agreed on by both parties, includes sanctions on executives of companies involved in the completion
of Nordstream 2. This is companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around
the arrival point.
This could include arrest of the executives of those companies, who might travel to the United States. One of the companies
is Royal Dutch Shell, who have 80,000 employees in the United States.
Some people believe 'the market' for crude oil is a fair and effective arbiter of the industry supply and demand.
But if we step back an inch or two, we all can see it has been a severely broken mechanism during this up phase in oil.
For example, there has been long lags between market signals of shortage or surplus.
Disruptive policies and mechanisms such as tariffs, embargo's, and sanctions, trade bloc quotas, military coups and popular revolutions,
socialist agendas, industry lobbying, multinational corporate McCarthyism, and massively obese debt financing, are all examples
of forces that have trumped an efficient and transparent oil market.
And yet, the problems with the oil market during this time of upslope will look placid in retrospect, as we enter the time beyond
peak.
I see no reason why it won't turn into a mad chaotic scramble.
We had a small hint of what this can look like in the last mid-century. The USA responded to military expansionism of Japan by
enacting an oil embargo against them. The response was Pearl Harbor. This is just one example of many.
How long before Iran lashes out in response to their restricted access to the market?
People generally don't respond very calmly to involuntary restriction on food, or energy, or access to the markets for these things.
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.'
It seems to me an important tenet of the neoliberal ideology is the arbiter (or
auctioneer) role it gives the state and other political institutions with respect to markets.
Markets are the locus of justice and efficiency, but political institutions have the
essential task of organizing them and the competitions that takes place within them,
supposedly at least.
In practice, this translated in a central role of political power not only in privatizing
and breaking state monopolies, but also in the creation, sometimes ex nihilo, of markets
supervised by state or quasi-state agencies (shielded of electoral choices by regulatory or
ideally constitutional provisions) whose role was to organize concurrence in domains
classical liberal economic theory would consider natural monopolies or natural public
properties (education, health service, energy distribution, infrastructure of transportation,
telecommunication, postal and banking service etc.)
What an excellent and deep observation ! Thank you ! This is the essence of the compromises
with financial oligarchy made by failing social democratic parties. Neoliberalism is kind of
Trotskyism for the rich in which the political power is used to shape the society "from above".
As Hayek remarked on his visit to Pinochet's Chile – "my personal preference leans toward
a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism".
George Monblot observed that "Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket [of
the financial oligarchy], but it rapidly became one." ( The Guardian, Apr 15, 2016):
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It
redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and
selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the
market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation
should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and
collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the
formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a
reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts
to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market
ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
The free (as in absence of regulation for FIRE) market produces a tiny cadre of winners and
an enormous army of losers (10% vs 90%) – and the losers, looking for revenge, have
turned to Trump. Now entrenched centers of "resistance" (and first of all CIA, the Justice
Department, The Department of State and a part of Pentagon) are trying to reverse the
situation. Failing to understand that they created Trump and each time will reproduce it in
more and more dangerous variant.
Trumpism is the inevitable result of the gap between the utopian ideal of the free (for the
FIRE sector only ) market and the dystopian reality for the majority of the population
("without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape" Pope Francis, "Evangelii
Gaudium")
The situation in which the financial sector generates just 4% of employment, but accounts
for more than 25% of corporate profits is unsustainable. It should be reversed and it will be
reversed.
"... Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other main rival in the region, Damascus. ..."
Before the evacuation of 1,000 American troops from northern
Syria to western Iraq, the Pentagon had 2,000 US forces in Syria.
After the drawdown of US
troops at Erdogan's insistence in order for Ankara to mount a ground offensive in northern Syria,
the US has still deployed 1,000 troops, mainly in oil-rich eastern Deir al-Zor province and
at al-Tanf military base.
Al-Tanf military base is strategically located in southeastern Syria on the border between Syria,
Iraq and Jordan, and it straddles on a critically important Damascus-Baghdad highway, which
serves as a lifeline for Damascus.
Washington has illegally occupied 55-kilometer area around
al-Tanf since 2016, and several hundred US Marines have trained several Syrian militant groups there.
It's worth noting that rather than fighting the Islamic State, the purpose of continued presence
of the US forces at al-Tanf military base is to address Israel's concerns regarding the expansion of
Iran's influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Regarding the oil- and natural gas-rich Deir al-Zor governorate, it's worth pointing out
that Syria used to produce modest quantities of oil for domestic needs before the war – roughly 400,000
barrels per day, which isn't much compared to tens of millions barrels daily oil production in the
Gulf states.
Although Donald Trump crowed in a characteristic blunt manner in a tweet after the withdrawal of
1,000 American troops from northern Syria that Washington had deployed forces in eastern Syria where
there was oil,
the purpose of exercising control over Syria's oil is neither to smuggle oil
out of Syria nor to deny the valuable source of revenue to the Islamic State.
There is no denying the fact that the remnants of the Islamic State militants are still found in
Syria and Iraq but its emirate has been completely dismantled in the region and its leadership is on
the run. So much so that the fugitive caliph of the terrorist organization was killed in the bastion
of a rival jihadist outfit, al-Nusra Front in Idlib, hundreds of kilometers away from the Islamic State
strongholds in eastern Syria.
Much like the "scorched earth" battle strategy of medieval warlords – as in the case of the Islamic
State which early in the year burned crops of local farmers while retreating from its former strongholds
in eastern Syria –
Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and
natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other
main rival in the region, Damascus.
After the devastation caused by eight years of proxy war, the Syrian government is in dire need
of tens of billions dollars international assistance to rebuild the country. Not only is Washington
hampering efforts to provide international aid to the hapless country, it is in fact squatting over
Syria's own resources with the help of its only ally in the region, the Kurds.
Although Donald Trump claimed credit for expropriating Syria's oil wealth, it bears mentioning
that "scorched earth" policy is not a business strategy, it is the institutional logic of the deep
state.
President Trump is known to be a businessman and at least ostensibly follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the craft of international diplomacy, however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and Washington's national security establishment.
Regarding Washington's interest in propping up the Gulf's autocrats and fighting their wars in regional
conflicts, it bears mentioning that in April 2016, the Saudi foreign minister
threatened
that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other
assets if the US Congress passed a bill that would allow Americans to sue the Saudi government in the
United States courts for its role in the September 11, 2001 terror attack – though the bill was eventually
passed, Saudi authorities have not been held accountable; even though 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers were
Saudi nationals.
Moreover, $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the United States, if we add its investment
in Western Europe and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total
would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf's investments in North America and Western Europe.
Furthermore, in order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf's oil in the energy-starved
industrialized world, here are a few stats from the OPEC data:
Saudi Arabia has the world's
largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production exceeds 10 million
barrels; Iran and Iraq, each, has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million
barrels per day, each; while UAE and Kuwait, each, has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3
million barrels per day, each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold 788
billion barrels, more than half of world's 1477 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.
No wonder then, 36,000 United States troops have currently been deployed in their numerous military
bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of
1980, which states: "Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain
control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United
States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
force."
Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry's sales of arms to the Gulf Arab
States,
a report
authored
by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama administration
had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during
its eight-year tenure.
Similarly, the top items in Trump's agenda for his maiden visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017 were:
firstly, he threw his weight behind the idea of the Saudi-led "Arab NATO" to counter Iran's influence
in the region; and secondly, he announced an unprecedented arms package for Saudi Arabia. The package
included between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales.
Therefore, keeping the economic dependence of the Western countries on the Gulf Arab States in mind,
during the times of global recession when most of manufacturing has been outsourced to China, it is
not surprising that when the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia decided to provide training and arms
to the Islamic jihadists in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan against the government of Bashar
al-Assad in Syria, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to toe the destructive
policy of its regional Middle Eastern allies, despite the sectarian nature of the proxy war and its
attendant consequences of breeding a new generation of Islamic jihadists who would become a long-term
security risk not only to the Middle East but to the Western countries, as well.
Similarly, when King Abdullah's successor King Salman decided, on the whim of the Crown Prince Mohammad
bin Salman, to invade Yemen in March 2015, once again the Obama administration had to yield to the
dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not
only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars'
worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf Arab States during the conflict.
In this reciprocal relationship, the US provides security to the ruling families of the Gulf Arab
states by providing weapons and troops; and in return, the Gulf's petro-sheikhs contribute substantial
investments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to the Western economies.
Regarding the Pax Americana which is the reality of the contemporary neocolonial order,
according to a January 2017
infographic
by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel were stationed all over the world,
including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.
Although Donald Trump keeps complaining that NATO must share the cost of deployment of US troops,
particularly in Europe where 47,000 American troops are stationed in Germany since the end of the Second
World War, 15,000 in Italy and 8,000 in the United Kingdom, fact of the matter is that the cost is
already shared between Washington and host countries.
Roughly, European countries pay one-third of the cost for maintaining US military bases in Europe
whereas Washington chips in the remaining two-third. In the Far Eastern countries, 75% of the cost
for the deployment of American troops is shared by Japan and the remaining 25% by Washington, and in
South Korea, 40% cost is shared by the host country and the US contributes the remaining 60%.
Whereas the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) – Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar – pay
two-third of the cost for maintaining 36,000 US troops in the Persian Gulf where more than half of
world's proven oil reserves are located and Washington contributes the remaining one-third.
* * *
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the
politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.
I am always amazed (and amused) at
how much smarter "journalists" are
than POTUS. If ONLY Mr. Trump would
read more and listen to those who
OBVIOUSLY are sooo much smarter!!!!
Maybe then he wouldn't be cowed and
bullied by Erdogan, Xi, Jung-on,
Trudeau (OK so maybe that one was
too far fetched) to name a few.
Please note the sarcasm. Do I really
need to go in to the success after
success Mr. Trump's foreign policy
has enjoyed? Come on Man.
What a load of BOLOCKS...The ONLY, I
mean The Real and True Reason for
American Armored presence is one
thing,,,,,,,Ready for IT ? ? ? To
Steal as much OIL as Possible, AND
convert the Booty into Currency,
Diamonds or some other intrinsically
valuable commodity, Millions of
Dollars at a Time......17 Years of
Shadows and Ghost Trucks and Tankers
Loading and Off-Loading the Black
Gold...this is what its all
about......M-O-N-E-Y....... Say It
With Me.... Mon-nee, Money Money
Mo_on_ne_e_ey, ......
From the sale of US oil in Syria
receive 30 million. dollars per
month. Image losses are immeasurably
greater. The United States put the
United States as a robbery bandit.
This is American democracy. The
longer the troops are in Syria, the
more countries will switch to
settlements in national currencies.
"Our interests", "strategic
interests" is always about money,
just a euphemism so it doesn't
look as greedy as it is. Another
euphemism is "security' ,meaning
war preparations.
...The military power of the USA
put directly in the service of "the
original TM" PIRATE STATE.
U are
the man Norm! But wait... now things
get a little hazy... in the
classic... 'alt0media fake
storyline' fashion!
"President Trump is known to be a
businessman and at least ostensibly
follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the
craft of international diplomacy,
however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and
Washington's national security
establishment."
Awww! Poor "DUmb as Rocks
Donnie" done been fooled agin!
...In the USA... the military men
are stirring at last... having been
made all too aware that their
putative 'boss' has been operating
on behalf of foreign powers ever
since being [s]elected, that the
State Dept of the once Great
Republic has been in active cahoots
with the jihadis ...
and that those who were sent over
there to fight against the
headchoppers discovered that the
only straight shooters in the whole
mess turned out to be the Kurds who
AGENT FRIMpf THREW UNDER THE BUS
ON INSTRUCTIONS FROM JIHADI HQ!
This is a Marxist critique of neoliberalism. Not necessary right but they his some relevant
points.
Notable quotes:
"... The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. ..."
"... The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world output. ..."
"... While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy? The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in the latter and meet global demand. ..."
"... The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5 ..."
"... This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state, the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse , causing a financial crisis. ..."
"... The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument, as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6 ..."
"... If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment. ..."
"... The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their home market ..."
"... In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people ..."
"... In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop and finds fascism. ..."
"... The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their support. ..."
"... The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions, imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of neoliberalism. ..."
"... And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more. ..."
"... Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11 Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against it. ..."
The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth.
But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this
ideological prop.
Harry Magdoff's The Age of
Imperialism is a classic work that shows how postwar political decolonization does not
negate the phenomenon of imperialism. The book has two distinct aspects. On the one hand, it
follows in V. I. Lenin's footsteps in providing a comprehensive account of how capitalism at
the time operated globally. On the other hand, it raises a question that is less frequently
discussed in Marxist literature -- namely, the need for imperialism. Here, Magdoff not only
highlighted the crucial importance, among other things, of the third world's raw materials for
metropolitan capital, but also refuted the argument that the declining share of raw-material
value in gross manufacturing output somehow reduced this importance, making the simple point
that there can be no manufacturing at all without raw materials. 1
Magdoff's focus was on a period when imperialism was severely resisting economic
decolonization in the third world, with newly independent third world countries taking control
over their own resources. He highlighted the entire armory of weapons used by imperialism. But
he was writing in a period that predated the onset of neoliberalism. Today, we not only have
decades of neoliberalism behind us, but the neoliberal regime itself has reached a dead end.
Contemporary imperialism has to be discussed within this setting.
Globalization and
Economic Crisis
There are two reasons why the regime of neoliberal globalization has run into a dead end.
The first is an ex ante tendency toward global overproduction; the second is that the
only possible counter to this tendency within the regime is the formation of asset-price
bubbles, which cannot be conjured up at will and whose collapse, if they do appear, plunges the
economy back into crisis. In short, to use the words of British economic historian Samuel
Berrick Saul, there are no "markets on tap" for contemporary metropolitan capitalism, such as
had been provided by colonialism prior to the First World War and by state expenditure in the
post-Second World War period of dirigisme . 2
The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages
across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector
of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world
output. As Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy argued in Monopoly Capital , following the lead of
Michał Kalecki and Josef Steindl, such a rise in the share of economic surplus, or a shift
from wages to surplus, has the effect of reducing aggregate demand since the ratio of
consumption to income is higher on average for wage earners than for those living off the
surplus. 3
Therefore, assuming a given level of investment associated with any period, such a shift would
tend to reduce consumption demand and hence aggregate demand, output, and capacity utilization.
In turn, reduced capacity utilization would lower investment over time, further aggravating the
demand-reducing effect arising from the consumption side.
While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous
phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an
explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy?
The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the
first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the
metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in
the latter and meet global demand.
Historically, while labor has not been, and is still not, free to migrate from the third
world to the metropolis, capital, though juridically free to move from the latter to the
former, did not actually do so , except to sectors like mines and plantations, which
only strengthened, rather than broke, the colonial pattern of the international division of
labor. 4
This segmentation of the world economy meant that wages in the metropolis increased with labor
productivity, unrestrained by the vast labor reserves of the third world, which themselves had
been caused by the displacement of manufactures through the twin processes of
deindustrialization (competition from metropolitan goods) and the drain of surplus (the
siphoning off of a large part of the economic surplus, through taxes on peasants that are no
longer spent on local artisan products but finance gratis primary commodity exports to
the metropolis instead).
The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to
the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and
take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of
the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the
third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the
real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was
marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5
At the same time, such relocation of activities, despite causing impressive growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) in many third world countries, does not lead to the exhaustion of
the third world's labor reserves. This is because of another feature of contemporary
globalization: the unleashing of a process of primitive accumulation of capital against petty
producers, including peasant agriculturists in the third world, who had earlier been protected,
to an extent, from the encroachment of big capital (both domestic and foreign) by the
postcolonial dirigiste regimes in these countries. Under neoliberalism, such protection
is withdrawn, causing an income squeeze on these producers and often their outright
dispossession from their land, which is then used by big capital for its various so-called
development projects. The increase in employment, even in countries with impressive GDP growth
rates in the third world, falls way short of the natural growth of the workforce, let alone
absorbing the additional job seekers coming from the ranks of displaced petty producers. The
labor reserves therefore never get used up. Indeed, on the contrary, they are augmented
further, because real wages continue to remain tied to a subsistence level, even as
metropolitan wages too are restrained. The vector of real wages in the world economy as a whole
therefore remains restrained.
Although contemporary globalization thus gives rise to an ex ante tendency toward
overproduction, state expenditure that could provide a counter to this (and had provided a
counter through military spending in the United States, according to Baran and Sweezy) can no
longer do so under the current regime. Finance is usually opposed to direct state intervention
through larger spending as a way of increasing employment. This opposition expresses itself
through an opposition not just to larger taxes on capitalists, but also to a larger fiscal
deficit for financing such spending. Obviously, if larger state spending is financed by taxes
on workers, then it hardly adds to aggregate demand, for workers spend the bulk of their
incomes anyway, so the state taking this income and spending it instead does not add any extra
demand. Hence, larger state spending can increase employment only if it is financed either
through a fiscal deficit or through taxes on capitalists who keep a part of their income
unspent or saved. But these are precisely the two modes of financing state expenditure that
finance capital opposes.
Its opposing larger taxes on capitalists is understandable, but why is it so opposed to a
larger fiscal deficit? Even within a capitalist economy, there are no sound economic
theoretical reasons that should preclude a fiscal deficit under all circumstances. The root of
the opposition therefore lies in deeper social considerations: if the capitalist economic
system becomes dependent on the state to promote employment directly , then this fact
undermines the social legitimacy of capitalism. The need for the state to boost the animal
spirits of the capitalists disappears and a perspective on the system that is epistemically
exterior to it is provided to the people, making it possible for them to ask: If the state can
do the job of providing employment, then why do we need the capitalists at all? It is an
instinctive appreciation of this potential danger that underlies the opposition of capital,
especially of finance, to any direct effort by the state to generate employment.
This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as
finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state,
the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second
World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is
globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a
nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large
fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse ,
causing a financial crisis.
The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews
direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since
that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their
social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument,
as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the
pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6
It may be thought that this compulsion on the part of the state to accede to the demand of
finance to eschew fiscal intervention for enlarging employment should not hold for the United
States. Its currency being considered by the world's wealth holders to be "as good as gold"
should make it immune to capital flight. But there is an additional factor operating in the
case of the United States: that the demand generated by a bigger U.S. fiscal deficit would
substantially leak abroad in a neoliberal setting, which would increase its external debt
(since, unlike Britain in its heyday, it does not have access to any unrequited colonial
transfers) for the sake of generating employment elsewhere. This fact deters any fiscal effort
even in the United States to boost demand within a neoliberal setting. 7
Therefore, it follows that state spending cannot provide a counter to the ex ante
tendency toward global overproduction within a regime of neoliberal globalization, which makes
the world economy precariously dependent on occasional asset-price bubbles, primarily in the
U.S. economy, for obtaining, at best, some temporary relief from the crisis. It is this fact
that underlies the dead end that neoliberal capitalism has reached. Indeed, Donald Trump's
resort to protectionism in the United States to alleviate unemployment is a clear recognition
of the system having reached this cul-de-sac. The fact that the mightiest capitalist
economy in the world has to move away from the rules of the neoliberal game in an attempt to
alleviate its crisis of unemployment/underemployment -- while compensating capitalists
adversely affected by this move through tax cuts, as well as carefully ensuring that no
restraints are imposed on free cross-border financial flows -- shows that these rules
are no longer viable in their pristine form.
Some Implications of This Dead End
There are at least four important implications of this dead end of neoliberalism. The first
is that the world economy will now be afflicted by much higher levels of unemployment than it
was in the last decade of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first, when
the dot-com and the housing bubbles in the United States had, sequentially, a pronounced
impact. It is true that the U.S. unemployment rate today appears to be at a historic low, but
this is misleading: the labor-force participation rate in the United States today is lower than
it was in 2008, which reflects the discouraged-worker effect . Adjusting for this lower
participation, the U.S. unemployment rate is considerable -- around 8 percent. Indeed, Trump
would not be imposing protection in the United States if unemployment was actually as low as 4
percent, which is the official figure. Elsewhere in the world, of course, unemployment
post-2008 continues to be evidently higher than before. Indeed, the severity of the current
problem of below-full-employment production in the U.S. economy is best illustrated by capacity
utilization figures in manufacturing. The weakness of the U.S. recovery from the Great
Recession is indicated by the fact that the current extended recovery represents the first
decade in the entire post-Second World War period in which capacity utilization in
manufacturing has never risen as high as 80 percent in a single quarter, with the resulting
stagnation of investment. 8
If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a
beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the
United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen
the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the
United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already
appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be
because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping
unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we
look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment.
There has been some discussion on how global value chains would be affected by Trump's
protectionism. But the fact that global macroeconomics in the early twenty-first century will
look altogether different compared to earlier has not been much discussed.
In light of the preceding discussion, one could say that if, instead of individual
nation-states whose writ cannot possibly run against globalized finance capital, there was a
global state or a set of major nation-states acting in unison to override the objections of
globalized finance and provide a coordinated fiscal stimulus to the world economy, then perhaps
there could be recovery. Such a coordinated fiscal stimulus was suggested by a group of German
trade unionists, as well as by John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
9
While it was turned down then, in the present context it has not even been discussed.
The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large
over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with
protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even
spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world
market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the
ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their
home market.
Such a transition will not be easy; it will require promoting domestic peasant agriculture,
defending petty production, moving toward cooperative forms of production, and ensuring greater
equality in income distribution, all of which need major structural shifts. For smaller
economies, it would also require their coming together with other economies to provide a
minimum size to the domestic market. In short, the dead end of neoliberalism also means the
need for a shift away from the so-called neoliberal development strategy that has held sway
until now.
The third implication is the imminent engulfing of a whole range of third world economies in
serious balance-of-payments difficulties. This is because, while their exports will be sluggish
in the new situation, this very fact will also discourage financial inflows into their
economies, whose easy availability had enabled them to maintain current account deficits on
their balance of payments earlier. In such a situation, within the existing neoliberal
paradigm, they would be forced to adopt austerity measures that would impose income deflation
on their people, make the conditions of their people significantly worse, lead to a further
handing over of their national assets and resources to international capital, and prevent
precisely any possible transition to an alternative strategy of home market-based growth.
In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over
third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits
in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or
that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even
domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people.
The fourth implication is the worldwide upsurge of fascism. Neoliberal capitalism even
before it reached a dead end, even in the period when it achieved reasonable growth and
employment rates, had pushed the world into greater hunger and poverty. For instance, the world
per-capita cereal output was 355 kilograms for 1980 (triennium average for 1979–81
divided by mid–triennium population) and fell to 343 in 2000, leveling at 344.9 in 2016
-- and a substantial amount of this last figure went into ethanol production. Clearly, in a
period of growth of the world economy, per-capita cereal absorption should be expanding,
especially since we are talking here not just of direct absorption but of direct and indirect
absorption, the latter through processed foods and feed grains in animal products. The fact
that there was an absolute decline in per-capita output, which no doubt caused a decline in
per-capita absorption, suggests an absolute worsening in the nutritional level of a substantial
segment of the world's population.
But this growing hunger and nutritional poverty did not immediately arouse any significant
resistance, both because such resistance itself becomes more difficult under neoliberalism
(since the very globalization of capital makes it an elusive target) and also because higher
GDP growth rates provided a hope that distress might be overcome in the course of time.
Peasants in distress, for instance, entertained the hope that their children would live better
in the years to come if given a modicum of education and accepted their fate.
In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with
neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological
prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop
and finds fascism. This changes the discourse away from the material conditions of people's
lives to the so-called threat to the nation, placing the blame for people's distress not on the
failure of the system, but on ethnic, linguistic, and religious minority groups, the
other that is portrayed as an enemy. It projects a so-called messiah whose sheer
muscularity can somehow magically overcome all problems; it promotes a culture of unreason so
that both the vilification of the other and the magical powers of the supposed leader
can be placed beyond any intellectual questioning; it uses a combination of state repression
and street-level vigilantism by fascist thugs to terrorize opponents; and it forges a close
relationship with big business, or, in Kalecki's words, "a partnership of big business and
fascist upstarts." 10
Fascist groups of one kind or another exist in all modern societies. They move center stage
and even into power only on certain occasions when they get the backing of big business. And
these occasions arise when three conditions are satisfied: when there is an economic crisis so
the system cannot simply go on as before; when the usual liberal establishment is manifestly
incapable of resolving the crisis; and when the left is not strong enough to provide an
alternative to the people in order to move out of the conjuncture.
This last point may appear odd at first, since many see the big bourgeoisie's recourse to
fascism as a counter to the growth of the left's strength in the context of a capitalist
crisis. But when the left poses a serious threat, the response of the big bourgeoisie typically
is to attempt to split it by offering concessions. It uses fascism to prop itself up only when
the left is weakened. Walter Benjamin's remark that "behind every fascism there is a failed
revolution" points in this direction.
Fascism Then and Now
Contemporary fascism, however, differs in crucial respects from its 1930s counterpart, which
is why many are reluctant to call the current phenomenon a fascist upsurge. But historical
parallels, if carefully drawn, can be useful. While in some aforementioned respects
contemporary fascism does resemble the phenomenon of the 1930s, there are serious differences
between the two that must also be noted.
First, we must note that while the current fascist upsurge has put fascist elements in power
in many countries, there are no fascist states of the 1930s kind as of yet. Even if the fascist
elements in power try to push the country toward a fascist state, it is not clear that they
will succeed. There are many reasons for this, but an important one is that fascists in power
today cannot overcome the crisis of neoliberalism, since they accept the regime of
globalization of finance. This includes Trump, despite his protectionism. In the 1930s,
however, this was not the case. The horrors associated with the institution of a fascist state
in the 1930s had been camouflaged to an extent by the ability of the fascists in power to
overcome mass unemployment and end the Depression through larger military spending, financed by
government borrowing. Contemporary fascism, by contrast, lacks the ability to overcome the
opposition of international finance capital to fiscal activism on the part of the government to
generate larger demand, output, and employment, even via military spending.
Such activism, as discussed earlier, required larger government spending financed either
through taxes on capitalists or through a fiscal deficit. Finance capital was opposed to both
of these measures and it being globalized made this opposition decisive . The
decisiveness of this opposition remains even if the government happens to be one composed of
fascist elements. Hence, contemporary fascism, straitjacketed by "fiscal rectitude," cannot
possibly alleviate even temporarily the economic crises facing people and cannot provide any
cover for a transition to a fascist state akin to the ones of the 1930s, which makes such a
transition that much more unlikely.
Another difference is also related to the phenomenon of the globalization of finance. The
1930s were marked by what Lenin had earlier called "interimperialist rivalry." The military
expenditures incurred by fascist governments, even though they pulled countries out of the
Depression and unemployment, inevitably led to wars for "repartitioning an already partitioned
world." Fascism was the progenitor of war and burned itself out through war at, needless to
say, great cost to humankind.
Contemporary fascism, however, operates in a world where interimperialist rivalry is far
more muted. Some have seen in this muting a vindication of Karl Kautsky's vision of an
"ultraimperialism" as against Lenin's emphasis on the permanence of interimperialist rivalry,
but this is wrong. Both Kautsky and Lenin were talking about a world where finance capital and
the financial oligarchy were essentially national -- that is, German, French, or British. And
while Kautsky talked about the possibility of truces among the rival oligarchies, Lenin saw
such truces only as transient phenomena punctuating the ubiquity of rivalry.
In contrast, what we have today is not nation-based finance capitals, but
international finance capital into whose corpus the finance capitals drawn from
particular countries are integrated. This globalized finance capital does not want the world
to be partitioned into economic territories of rival powers ; on the contrary, it wants the
entire globe to be open to its own unrestricted movement. The muting of rivalry between major
powers, therefore, is not because they prefer truce to war, or peaceful partitioning of the
world to forcible repartitioning, but because the material conditions themselves have changed
so that it is no longer a matter of such choices. The world has gone beyond both Lenin and
Kautsky, as well as their debates.
Not only are we not going to have wars between major powers in this era of fascist upsurge
(of course, as will be discussed, we shall have other wars), but, by the same token, this
fascist upsurge will not burn out through any cataclysmic war. What we are likely to see is a
lingering fascism of less murderous intensity , which, when in power, does not
necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically
annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally.
But since its successor government, as long as it remains within the confines of the neoliberal
strategy, will also be incapable of alleviating the crisis, the fascist elements are likely to
return to power as well. And whether the fascist elements are in or out of power, they will
remain a potent force working toward the fascification of the society and the polity, even
while promoting corporate interests within a regime of globalization of finance, and hence
permanently maintaining the "partnership between big business and fascist upstarts."
Put differently, since the contemporary fascist upsurge is not likely to burn itself out as
the earlier one did, it has to be overcome by transcending the very conjuncture that produced
it: neoliberal capitalism at a dead end. A class mobilization of working people around an
alternative set of transitional demands that do not necessarily directly target neoliberal
capitalism, but which are immanently unrealizable within the regime of neoliberal capitalism,
can provide an initial way out of this conjuncture and lead to its eventual transcendence.
Such a class mobilization in the third world context would not mean making no truces with
liberal bourgeois elements against the fascists. On the contrary, since the liberal bourgeois
elements too are getting marginalized through a discourse of jingoistic nationalism typically
manufactured by the fascists, they too would like to shift the discourse toward the material
conditions of people's lives, no doubt claiming that an improvement in these conditions is
possible within the neoliberal economic regime itself. Such a shift in discourse is in
itself a major antifascist act . Experience will teach that the agenda advanced as part of
this changed discourse is unrealizable under neoliberalism, providing the scope for dialectical
intervention by the left to transcend neoliberal capitalism.
Imperialist
Interventions
Even though fascism will have a lingering presence in this conjuncture of "neoliberalism at
a dead end," with the backing of domestic corporate-financial interests that are themselves
integrated into the corpus of international finance capital, the working people in the third
world will increasingly demand better material conditions of life and thereby rupture the
fascist discourse of jingoistic nationalism (that ironically in a third world context is not
anti-imperialist).
In fact, neoliberalism reaching a dead end and having to rely on fascist elements revives
meaningful political activity, which the heyday of neoliberalism had precluded, because most
political formations then had been trapped within an identical neoliberal agenda that appeared
promising. (Latin America had a somewhat different history because neoliberalism arrived in
that continent through military dictatorships, not through its more or less tacit acceptance by
most political formations.)
Such revived political activity will necessarily throw up challenges to neoliberal
capitalism in particular countries. Imperialism, by which we mean the entire economic and
political arrangement sustaining the hegemony of international finance capital, will deal with
these challenges in at least four different ways.
The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation
that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even
before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby
denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only
increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may
well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from
a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers
and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their
support.
Even if capital controls are put in place, where there are current account deficits,
financing such deficits would pose a problem, necessitating some trade controls. But this is
where the second instrument of imperialism comes into play: the imposition of trade sanctions
by the metropolitan states, which then cajole other countries to stop buying from the
sanctioned country that is trying to break away from thralldom to globalized finance capital.
Even if the latter would have otherwise succeeded in stabilizing its economy despite its
attempt to break away, the imposition of sanctions becomes an additional blow.
The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the
sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the
local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of
civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection
generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions,
imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political
elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of
neoliberalism.
And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic
warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military
warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third
world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when
revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more.
Two aspects of such intervention are striking. One is the virtual unanimity among the
metropolitan states, which only underscores the muting of interimperialist rivalry in the era
of hegemony of global finance capital. The other is the extent of support that such
intervention commands within metropolitan countries, from the right to even the liberal
segments.
Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing
for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First
World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state
intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only
occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11
Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize
itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist
intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against
it.
Samuel Berrick Saul, Studies in British Overseas Trade, 1870–1914
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960).
Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1966).
One of the first authors to recognize this fact and its significance was Paul Baran in
The Political Economy of
Growth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957).
For the role of such colonial transfers in sustaining the British balance of payments and the
long Victorian and Edwardian boom, see Utsa Patnaik, "Revisiting the 'Drain,' or Transfers
from India to Britain in the Context of Global Diffusion of Capitalism," in Agrarian
and Other Histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri , ed. Shubhra Chakrabarti and
Utsa Patnaik (Delhi: Tulika, 2017), 277-317.
Federal Reserve Board of Saint Louis Economic Research, FRED, "Capacity Utilization:
Manufacturing," February 2019 (updated March 27, 2019), http://fred.stlouisfed.org .
This issue is discussed by Charles P. Kindleberger in The World in Depression,
1929–1939 , 40th anniversary ed. (Oakland: University of California Press,
2013).
Joseph Schumpeter had seen Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace as
essentially advocating such state intervention in the new situation. See his essay, "John
Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)," in Ten Great Economists (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1952).
Utsa Patnaik is Professor Emerita at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her books include Peasant Class Differentiation (1987),
The Long Transition (1999), and The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays (2007). Prabhat Patnaik
is Professor Emeritus at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. His books include Accumulation and Stability Under Capitalism (1997),
The Value of Money(2009), and Re-envisioning Socialism(2011).
The question why the USA intelligence agencies were "unaware" about Epstein activities is an interesting one. Similar question can
be asked about Hillary "activities" related to "Clinton cash".
Actually the way the USA elite deal with scandals is to ostracize any whistleblower and silence any media that tryt to dig the story.
Open repression including physical elimination is seldom used those days as indirect methods are quite effective.
Notable quotes:
"... Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall. ..."
"... If you doubt this, then please explain how 1) the NSA, CIA and FBI didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, and with whom; 2) Epstein was free to pursue his sexual exploitation of minors for years prior to his wrist-slap conviction and for years afterward; 3) Epstein, the highest profile and most at-risk prisoner in the nation, was left alone and the security cameras recording his cell and surroundings were "broken." ..."
"... America's ruling class has crucified whistleblowers , especially those uncovering fraud in the defense (military-industrial-security) and financial (tax evasion) sectors and blatant violations of public trust, civil liberties and privacy. ..."
"... Needless to say, a factual accounting of corruption, cronyism, incompetence, self-serving exploitation of the many by the few, etc. is not welcome in America. Look at the dearth of investigative resources America's corporate media is devoting to digging down to the deepest levels of rot in the Epstein case. ..."
Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired
to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall.
When you discover rot in an apparently sound structure, the first question is: how far has the rot penetrated? If the rot
has reached the foundation and turned it to mush, the structure is one wind-storm from collapse.
How deep has the rot of corruption, fraud, abuse of power, betrayal of the public trust, blatant criminality and insiders protecting
the guilty penetrated America's key public and private institutions? It's difficult to tell, as the law-enforcement and security
agencies are themselves hopelessly compromised.
If you doubt this, then please explain how 1) the NSA, CIA and FBI didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, and with whom;
2) Epstein was free to pursue his sexual exploitation of minors for years prior to his wrist-slap conviction and for years afterward;
3) Epstein, the highest profile and most at-risk prisoner in the nation, was left alone and the security cameras recording his cell
and surroundings were "broken."
If this all strikes you as evidence that America's security and law-enforcement institutions are functioning at a level that's
above reproach, then 1) you're a well-paid shill who's protecting the guilty lest your own misdeeds come to light or 2) your
consumption of mind-bending meds is off the charts.
How deep has the rot gone in America's ruling elite? One way to measure the depth of the rot is to ask how whistleblowers
who've exposed the ugly realities of insider dealing, malfeasance, tax evasion, cover-ups, etc. have fared.
America's ruling class has crucified whistleblowers , especially those uncovering fraud in the defense (military-industrial-security)
and financial (tax evasion) sectors and blatant violations of public trust, civil liberties and privacy.
Needless to say, a factual accounting of corruption, cronyism, incompetence, self-serving exploitation of the many by the
few, etc. is not welcome in America. Look at the dearth of investigative resources America's corporate media is devoting to digging
down to the deepest levels of rot in the Epstein case.
The closer wrong-doing and wrong-doers are to protected power-elites, the less attention the mass media devotes to them.
... ... ...
Here are America's media, law enforcement/security agencies and "leadership" class: they speak no evil, see no evil and
hear no evil, in the misguided belief that their misdirection, self-service and protection of the guilty will make us buy the narrative
that America's ruling elite and all the core institutions they manage aren't rotten to the foundations.
Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired
to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall.
While details on Epstein death are not interesting (he ended like a regular pimp) the corruption of high level officials his case
revealed in more troubling.
Notable quotes:
"... Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence. The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. ..."
"... What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President, the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public. I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath. ..."
"... What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein, but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney. ..."
"... Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. ..."
"... Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them. Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's friends are professional networkers. One reporter said of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man. ..."
"... Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 ( as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite. ..."
"... Statutory rape is not a federal crime ..."
"... At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him. The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large. ..."
"... Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations? ..."
"... Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days at home instead of at jail. ..."
"... In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the police didn't enforce the rule that required him to check in every 90 days. ..."
"... Trafficking is a federal offense, so it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure. ..."
"... Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more leisurely task. ..."
"... Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy, because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it, and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. ..."
"... "It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska, joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried. ..."
"... President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up. ..."
"... he sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper. ..."
"... Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner? ..."
"... Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman, Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very little in the way of political contributions , though that little went mostly to Democrats ( $139,000 vs. $18,000 . I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them. ..."
"... What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this? ..."
"... Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people who asked for Rich to be pardoned . Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton to come to office and pardon them. ..."
"... "intelligence" is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure." ..."
"... James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him , and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing: The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them? ..."
"... There seems to have been an orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's been paid off. National Review had an article, "The Conspiracy Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this? ..."
"... The New York Times was, to its credit, willing to embarrass other publications by 2019. But the Times itself had been part of the cover-up in previous years . Who else was? ..."
"... Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened" to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation ..."
"... As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations. Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they die, I couldn't care less. ..."
"... We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The guards were tired and forced to work overtime. ..."
"... One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/ ..."
"... ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching teens ..."
The Jeffrey Epstein case is notable for the ups and downs in media coverage it's gotten over the years. Everybody, it seems, in
New York society knew by 2000 that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were corrupting teenage girls, but the press wouldn't cover
it. Articles by New York in 2002 and
Vanity Fair in 2003 alluded to it gently,
while probing Epstein's finances more closely. In 2005, the Palm Beach police investigated. The county prosecutor, Democrat Barry
Krischer, wouldn't prosecute for more than prostitution, so they went to the federal prosecutor, Republican Alexander Acosta, and
got the FBI involved. Acosta's office prepared an indictment, but before it was filed, he made a deal: Epstein agreed to plead guilty
to a state law felony and receive a prison term of 18 months. In exchange, the federal interstate sex trafficking charges would not
be prosecuted by Acosta's office. Epstein was officially at the county jail for 13 months, where the county officials under Democratic
Sheriff Ric Bradshaw gave him scandalously
easy treatment , letting him spend his days outside, and letting him serve a year of probation in place of the last 5 months
of his sentence. Acosta's office complained, but it was a county jail, not a federal jail, so he was powerless.
Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence.
The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. Two books were written about the affair, and
fell flat. The FBI became interested again around 2011 (
a little known fact
) and maybe things were happening behind the scenes, but the next big event was in 2018 when the Miami Herald published a
series of investigative articles rehashing what had happened.
In 2019 federal prosecutors indicted Epstein, he was put in jail, and
he mysteriously died. Now, after much complaining in the press about how awful jails are and how many people commit suicide, things
are quiet again, at least until the Justice Department and
the State of Florida finish their
investigation a few years from now. (For details and more links, see " Investigation: Jeffrey Epstein
"at Medium.com and " Jeffrey Epstein " at Wikipedia
.)
I'm an expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking. What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President,
the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public.
I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup
plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where
I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath.
That's what Epstein would do. What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein,
but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly
better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start
giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney.
Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. The reason people call such talk
"conspiracy theories" when it comes to Epstein is that his friends are WASPs and Jews, not Italians and Mexicans. But WASPs and Jews
are human too. They want to protect themselves. Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on
their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework
basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them.
Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's
friends are professional networkers.
One reporter said
of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know
people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least
one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man.
In light of this, it would be very surprising if someone with a spare $50 million to spend to solve the Epstein problem didn't
give it a try. A lot of people can be bribed for $50 million. Thus, we should have expected to see bribery attempts. If none were
detected, it must have been because prison workers are not reporting they'd been approached.
Some
people say that government incompetence is always a better explanation than government malfeasance. That's obviously wrong --
when an undeserving business gets a contract, it's not always because the government official in charge was just not paying attention.
I can well believe that prisons often take prisoners off of suicide watch too soon, have guards who go to sleep and falsify records,
remove cellmates from prisoners at risk of suicide or murder, let the TV cameras watching their most important prisoners go on the
blink, and so forth. But that cuts both ways.
Remember, in the case of Epstein, we'd expect a murder attempt whether the warden of
the most important federal jail in the country is competent or not. If the warden is incompetent, we should expect that murder attempt
to succeed. Murder becomes all the more more plausible. Instead of spending $50 million to bribe 20 guards and the warden, you just
pay some thug $30,000 to walk in past the snoring guards, open the cell door, and strangle the sleeping prisoner, no fancy James
Bond necessary. Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 (
as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government
incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite.
Now to my questions.
Why is nobody blaming the Florida and New York state prosecutors for not prosecuting Epstein and others for statutory rape?
Statutory rape is not a federal crime, so it is not something the Justice Dept. is supposed to investigate or prosecute. They
are going after things like interstate sex trafficking. Interstate sex trafficking is generally much harder to prove than statutory
rape, which is very easy if the victims will testify.
At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him.
The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other
culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large.
Note that if even if the evidence is just the girl's word against Ghislaine Maxwell's or Prince Andrew's, it's still quite possible
to get a jury to convict. After all, who would you believe, in a choice between Maxwell, Andrew, and Anyone Else in the World? For
an example of what can be done if the government is eager to convict, instead of eager to protect important people, see
the 2019 Cardinal
Pell case in Australia. He was convicted by the secret testimony of a former choirboy, the only complainant, who claimed Pell
had committed indecent acts during a chance encounter after Mass before Pell had even unrobed. Naturally, the only cardinal to be
convicted of anything in the Catholic Church scandals is also the one who's done the most to fight corruption. Where there's a will,
there's a way to prosecute. It's even easier to convict someone if he's actually guilty.
Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went
easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations?
Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually
went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days
at home instead of at jail.
In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified
as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the
police didn't enforce the
rule that required him to check in every 90 days.
How easy would it have been to prove in 2016 or 2019 that Epstein and his people were guilty of federal sex trafficking?
Not easy, I should think. It wouldn't be enough to prove that Epstein debauched teenagers. Trafficking is a federal offense, so
it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure.
The 2019 indictment
is weak on this. The "interstate commerce" looks like it's limited to Epstein making phone calls between Florida and New York. This
is why I am not completely skeptical when former U.S. Attorney Acosta says that the 2008 nonprosecution deal was reasonable. He had
strong evidence the Epstein violated Florida state law -- but that wasn't relevant. He had to prove violations of federal law.
Why didn't Epstein ask the Court, or the Justice Dept., for permission to have an unarmed guard share his cell with him?
Epstein had no chance at bail without bribing the judge, but this request would have been reasonable. That he didn't request a
guard is, I think, the strongest evidence that he wanted to die. If he didn't commit suicide himself, he was sure making it easy
for someone else to kill him.
Could Epstein have used the safeguard of leaving a trove of photos with a friend or lawyer to be published if he died an unnatural
death?
Well, think about it -- Epstein's lawyer was Alan Dershowitz. If he left photos with someone like Dershowitz, that someone could
earn a lot more by using the photos for blackmail himself than by dutifully carrying out his perverted customer's instructions. The
evidence is just too valuable, and Epstein was someone whose friends weren't the kind of people he could trust. Probably not even
his brother.
Who is in danger of dying next?
Prison workers from guard to warden should be told that if they took bribes, their lives are now in danger. Prison guards may
not be bright enough to realize this. Anybody who knows anything important about Epstein should be advised to publicize their information
immediately. That is the best way to stay alive.
This is not like a typical case where witnesses get killed so they won't testify.
It's not like with gangsters. Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and
rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty
of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential
informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more
leisurely task.
What happened to Epstein's body?
The Justice Dept. had better not have let Epstein's body be cremated. And they'd better give us convincing evidence that it's
his body. If I had $100 million to get out of jail with, acquiring a corpse and bribing a few people to switch fingerprints and DNA
wouldn't be hard. I find it worrying that the government has not released proof that Epstein is dead or a copy of the autopsy.
"Beyond its isolation, the wing is infested with rodents and cockroaches, and inmates often have to navigate standing water
-- as well as urine and fecal matter -- that spills from faulty plumbing, accounts from former inmates and lawyers said. One lawyer
said mice often eat his clients' papers."
" Often have to navigate standing water"? "Mice often eat his clients' papers?" Really? I'm skeptical. What do the
vermin eat -- do inmates leave Snickers bars open in their cells? Has anyone checked on what the prison conditions really like?
Is it just a coincidence that Epstein made a new will two days before he died?
I can answer this one. Yes, it is coincidence, though it's not a coincidence that he rewrote the will shortly after being denied
bail. The will leaves everything to a trust, and it is the trust document (which is confidential), not the will (which is public),
that determines who gets the money. Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably
changed that because he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the
will.
Did Epstein's veiled threat against DOJ officials in his bail filing backfire?
Epstein's lawyers wrote in his bail request,
"If the government is correct that the NPA does not, and never did, preclude a prosecution in this district, then the government
will likely have to explain why it purposefully delayed a prosecution of someone like Mr. Epstein, who registered as a sex offender
10 years ago and was certainly no stranger to law enforcement. There is no legitimate explanation for the delay."
I see this as a veiled threat. The threat is that Epstein would subpoena people and documents from the Justice Department relevant
to the question of why there was a ten-year delay before prosecution, to expose the illegitimate explanation for the delay. Somebody
is to blame for that delay, and court-ordered disclosure is a bigger threat than an internal federal investigation.
Who can we trust?
Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy,
because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it,
and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've
heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate
Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often
honorable.
Someone else who may be a hero in this is Senator Ben Sasse.
Vicki Ward
writes in the Daily Beast :
"It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska,
joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried.
Given the political sentiment, it's unsurprising that the FBI should feel newly emboldened to investigate Epstein -- basing
some of their work on Brown's excellent reporting."
Will President Trump Cover Up Epstein's Death in Exchange for Political Leverage?
President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the
press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but
acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot
in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up.
Why did Judge Sweet order Epstein documents sealed in 2017. Did he die naturally in 2019?
Judge Robert Sweet in 2017 ordered all documents in an Epstein-related case sealed. He died in May 2019 at age 96, at home in
Idaho. The sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were
released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment
figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but
his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper.
Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner?
Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman,
Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who
has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken
Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very
little in the way of
political contributions
, though that little went mostly to Democrats (
$139,000 vs. $18,000
. I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them.
What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this?
Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned
by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people
who asked for Rich to be pardoned
. Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton
to come to office and pardon them.
Acosta said that Washington Bush Administration people told him to go easy on Epstein because he was an intelligence source. That
is plausible. Epstein had info and blackmailing ability with people like Ehud Barak, leader of Israel's Labor Party. But "intelligence"
is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure."
Why did nobody pay attention to the two 2016 books on Epstein?
James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him ,
and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing:
The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them?
Which newspapers reported Epstein's death as "suicide" and which as "apparent suicide"?
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug? There seems to have been an
orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's
been paid off. National Review had an article,
"The Conspiracy
Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's
assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this?
How much did Epstein corrupt the media from 2008 to 2019?
Even outlets that generally publish good articles must be suspected of corruption. Epstein made an effort to get good publicity.
The New York Times
wrote,
"The effort led to the publication of articles describing him as a selfless and forward-thinking philanthropist with an interest
in science on websites like Forbes, National Review and HuffPost .
All three articles have been removed from their sites in recent days, after inquiries from TheNew York Times .
The National Review piece, from the same year, called him "a smart businessman" with a "passion for cutting-edge science."
Ms. Galbraith was also a publicist for Mr. Epstein, according to several news releases promoting Mr. Epstein's foundations In
the article that appeared on the National Review site, she described him as having "given thoughtfully to countless organizations
that help educate underprivileged children."
"We took down the piece, and regret publishing it," Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review since 1997, said in an email.
He added that the publication had "had a process in place for a while now to weed out such commercially self-interested pieces from
lobbyists and PR flacks.""
Eric Rasmusen is an economist who has held an endowed chair at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business and visiting
positions at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, the Harvard Economics Department, Chicago's Booth School of Business, Nuffield
College/Oxford, and the University of Tokyo Economics Department. He is best known for his book Games and Information. He has published
extensively in law and economics, including recent articles on the burakumin outcastes in Japan, the use of game theory in jurisprudence,
and quasi-concave functions. The views expressed here are his personal views and are not intended to represent the views of the Kelley
School of Business or Indiana University. His vitae is at http://www.rasmusen.org/vita.htm
.
Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has
been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened"
to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation
Apparently, there will always be many players on the field, and many ways to do damage control.
So the problem was finding a motivated prosecutor in case of Jewish predator with very likely links to intelligence services
of several countries. The motivation was obviously lacking.
Your "expertise" in game theory would be greatly improved if you let yourself consider the Jewish factor.
As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally
I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations.
Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the
world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they
die, I couldn't care less.
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug?
Not the National Enquirer:
Jeffrey Epstein Murder Cover-up Exposed!
Death Scene Staged to Look Like Suicide
Billionaire's Screams Ignored by Guards!
Fatal Attack Caught on Jail Cameras!
Autopsy is Hiding the Truth!
I don't hold AG Barr in the high regard this piece does. While I'm not suggesting he had anything to do with Epstein's
death I do think he's corrupt. I doubt he will do anything that leads to the truth. As for him relieving the warden of
his duties, I would hope that was to be expected, wasn't it? I mean he only had two attempts on Epstein's life with the second
being a success. Apparently the first didn't jolt the warden into some kind of action as it appears he was guilty of a number
of sins including 'Sloth.'
As for the publications that don't like conspiracy theories –like the National Review
-- they are a hoot. We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The
guards were tired and forced to work overtime. There was no camera specifically in the cell with Epstein.
In the end I think Epstein probably was allowed to kill himself but I'm not confident in that scenario at all. And yes the media
should pressure Barr to hav e a look in the cell and see exactly how a suicide attempt might have succeeded or if it was a long-shot
at best, given the materiel and conditions.
19. Why is the non-prosecution agreement ambiguous ("globally" binding), when it was written by the best lawyers in the country
for a very wealthy client? Was the ambiguity bargained-for? If so, what are the implications?
20. With "globally" still being unresolved (to the bail judge's first-paragraph astonishment), why commit suicide now?
21. The "it was malfeasance" components are specified. For mere malfeasance to have been the cause, all of the components would
have to be true; it would be a multiplicative function of the several components. Is no one sufficiently quantitative to estimate
the magnitude?
22. What is the best single takeaway phrase that emerges from all of this? My nomination is: "In your face." The brazen, shameless,
unprecedented, turning-point, in-your-faceness of it.
ER the answer is easy to you list of questions .. there is no law in the world when violations are not prosecuted and fair open
for all to see trials are not held and judges do not deliver the appropriate penalties upon convictions. .. in cases involving
the CIA prosecution it is unheard of that a open for all to see trial takes place.
This is why we the governed masses need a parallel government..
such an oversight government would allow to pick out the negligent or wilful misconduct of persons in functional government
and prosecute such persons in the independent people's court.. Without a second government to oversee the first government there
is no democracy; democracy cannot stand and the governed masses will never see the light of a fair day .. unless the masses have
oversight authority on what is to be made into law, and are given without prejudice to their standing in America the right to
charge those associated to government with negligent or wilful misconduct.
There are big questions this article is not asking either
The words 'Mossad' seems not to appear above, and just a brief mention of 'Israel' with Ehud Barak
One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist
billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many
Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney
Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/
Was escape to freedom & Israe,l the ultimate payoff for Epstein's decades of work for Mossad, grooming and abusing young teens,
filmed in flagrante delicto with prominent people for political blackmail?
Is it not likely this was a Mossad jailbreak covered by fake 'suicide', with Epstein alive now, with US gov now also in possession
of the assumed Epstein sexual blackmail video tapes?
We have the Epstein 'death in jail' under the US Attorney General Bill Barr, a former CIA officer 1973-77, the CIA supporting
him thru night law school, Bill Barr's later law firm Kirkland Ellis representing Epstein
Whose Jewish-born ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage
teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching
teens
So would a crypto-Jewish 'former' CIA officer who is now USA Attorney General, possibly help a Mossad political blackmailer
escape to Israel after a fake 'jail suicide'?
An intriguing 4chan post a few hours after Epstein's 'body was discovered', says Epstein was put in a wheelchair and driven
out of the jail in a van, accompanied by a man in a green military uniform – timestamp is USA Pacific on the screencap apparently,
so about 10:44 NYC time Sat.10 Aug
FWIW, drone video of Epstein's Little St James island from Friday 30 August, shows a man who could be Epstein himself, on the
left by one vehicle, talking to a black man sitting on a quad all-terrain unit
Close up of Epstein-like man between vehicles, from video note 'pale finger' match-up to archive photo Epstein
The thing that sticks out for me is that Epstein was caught, charged, and went to jail previously, but he didn't die .
The second time, it appears he was murdered. I strongly suspect that the person who murdered Epstein was someone who only met
Epstein after 2008, or was someone Epstein only procured for after 2008. Otherwise, this person would have killed Epstein
back when Epstein was charged by the cops the first time.
Either that, or the killer is someone who is an opponent of Trump, and this person was genuinely terrified that Trump would
pressure the Feds to avoid any deals and to squeeze all the important names out of Epstein and prosecute them, too.
The author professes himself "expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking," but he doesn't say how his 18 questions
were arrived at to the exclusion of hundreds of others. Instead, the column includes several casual assumptions and speculation.
For example:
"Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably changed that because
he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the will."
"President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein."
"I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would
have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal
prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often honorable."
As to this last, isn't "quickly [firing] the federal prison head honcho" consistent with a failure-to-prevent-suicide deflection
strategy? And has Mr. Rasmusen not "heard" of the hiring of Mr. Epstein by Mr. Barr's father? Or of the father's own Establishment
background?
I hope to be wrong, but my own hunch is that these investigations, like the parallel investigations of the RussiaGate hoax,
will leave the elite unscathed. I also hope that in the meantime we see more rigorous columns here than this one.
...Also, subsequently, it should have been a top priority to arrest Ghislaine Maxwell but the government, justice and media
lack interest . Apparently, they don't know where she is, and they're not making any special efforts to find out.
"... A black man's body is found wrapped in chains at the bottom of the Detroit River. The police were saying it was an accidental death caused by him stealing more chains than he could swim with. ..."
The likelihood of Epstein committing suicide reminds me of two other "suicide" stories.
... ... ...
Finally, there is a greatly modified joke from my long ago misspent youth. A black man's
body is found wrapped in chains at the bottom of the Detroit River. The police were saying it
was an accidental death caused by him stealing more chains than he could swim with.
Images removed. For full text the original source... test
Notable quotes:
"... Maxwell, who was a business partner of Mega Group co-founder Charles Bronfman, aided the successful Mossad plot to plant a trapdoor in U.S.-created software that was then sold to governments and companies throughout the world. That plot’s success was largely due to the role of a close associate of then-President Ronald Reagan and an American politician close to Maxwell, who later helped aid Reagan in the cover-up of the Iran Contra scandal. ..."
"... Years later, Maxwell’s daughter — Ghislaine Maxwell — would join Jeffrey Epstein’s “inner circle” at the same time Epstein was bankrolling a similar software program now being marketed for critical electronic infrastructure in the U.S. and abroad ..."
"... Epstein appears to have ties to Israeli intelligence and has well-documented ties to influential Israeli politicians and the Mega Group. Yet, those entities are not isolated in and of themselves, as many also connect to the organized crime network and powerful alleged pedophiles discussed in previous installments of this series. ..."
"... Associated Press ..."
"... Lauder, then-ambassador to Austria for the Reagan administration, would have been well-positioned to acquire such a passport, particularly for the reason cited by Epstein’s attorneys that Jewish-Americans could be targeted during travel, and in light of Lauder’s very public concerns over threats Jews face from certain terror groups. Furthermore, the passport had been issued in 1987, when Lauder was still serving as an ambassador. ..."
"... Though Epstein’s defense attorney declined to reveal the identity of the “friend” who provided him with the fake Austrian passport, Lauder was both well-positioned to acquire it in Austria and also deeply connected to the Mega Group, which was co-founded by Epstein’s patron Leslie Wexner and to which Epstein has many connections. These connections to both the Austrian government and to Epstein’s mentor make Lauder the most likely person to have acquired the document on Epstein’s behalf. ..."
"... Furthermore, Lauder co-founded the Eastern European broadcasting network CETV with Mark Palmer, a former U.S. diplomat, Kissinger aide and Reagan speechwriter. Palmer is better known for co-founding the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization often described as an accessory to U.S. intelligence, and one whose first president confessed to the Washington Post that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” A 2001 report in the Evening Standard noted that Epstein once claimed that during the 1980s he worked for the CIA, but Epstein later backed away from that assertion. ..."
"... The Mega Group — a secretive group of billionaires to which Lauder belongs — was formed in 1991 by Charles Bronfman and Leslie Wexner, the latter of whom has received considerable media scrutiny following the July arrest of his former protege Jeffrey Epstein. Media profiles of the group paint it as “a loosely organized club of 20 of the nation’s wealthiest and most influential Jewish businessmen” focused on “philanthropy and Jewishness,” with membership dues upwards of $30,000 per year. Yet several of its most prominent members have ties to organized crime. ..."
"... When Edgar Bronfman died in 2013, long-time ADL Director Abe Foxman said , “Edgar was for many years Chair of our Liquor Industry Division, Chair of our New York Appeal, and one of our most significant benefactors.” Other Mega Group members that are donors and major supporters of the ADL include Ronald Lauder , Michael Steinhardt and the late Max Fisher . As previously mentioned, Roy Cohn’s father was a long-time leader of B’nai B’rith’s influential New England-New York chapter and Cohn was later a celebrated member of its banking and finance lodge. ..."
"... In addition, Mega Group members have also been key players in the pro-Israel lobby in the United States. For instance, Max Fisher of the Mega Group founded the National Jewish Coalition, now known as the Republican Jewish Coalition — the main pro-Israel neoconservative political lobbying group , known for its support of hawkish policies, and whose current chief patrons, Sheldon Adelson and Bernard Marcus, are among Donald Trump’s top donors. ..."
"... Sam Bronfman, as was detailed in Part I of this series, had long-standing deep ties to organized crime, specifically Meyer Lanksy’s organized crime syndicate. Yet, Bronfman’s private ambition, according to those close to him, was to become a respected member of high society. As a consequence, Bronfman worked hard to remove the stain that his mob associations had left on his public reputation in Canada and abroad. He accomplished this by becoming a leader in Canada’s Zionist movement and, by the end of the 1930s, he was head of the Canadian Jewish Congress and had begun to make a name for himself as a philanthropist for Jewish causes. ..."
"... Yet even some of Bronfman’s activism and philanthropy had hints of the mobster-like reputation he tried so hard to shake. For instance, Bronfman was actively involved in the illegal shipping of arms to Zionist paramilitaries in Palestine prior to 1948, specifically as a co-founder of the National Conference for Israeli and Jewish Rehabilitation that smuggled weapons to the paramilitary group Haganah. ..."
"... However, Edgar and Charles Bronfman were hardly the only members of the Mega Group with deep and long-standing ties to the Lansky-led National Crime Syndicate. Indeed, one of the group’s prominent members, hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt, opened up about his own family ties to Lansky in his autobiography No Bull: My Life in and out the Markets , where he noted that his father, Sol “Red McGee” Steinhardt, was Lansky’s jewel fence of choice and a major player in New York’s criminal underworld. Sol Steinhardt was also his son’s first client on Wall Street and helped him jumpstart his career in finance. ..."
"... One surprise connection to Cohn involves Mega Group member, and former president of U.S. weapons firm General Dynamics, Lester Crown, whose brother-in-law is David Schine, Cohn’s confidant and alleged lover during the McCarthy hearings, whose relationship with Cohn helped bring about the downfall of McCarthyism. ..."
"... Leslie “Les” Wexner, the other Mega Group co-founder, also has ties to organized crime. Wexner’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein have come under scrutiny following the latter’s recent arrest, as Wexner was the only publicly acknowledged client of Epstein’s suspicious hedge fund, the source of much of this wealth, and the previous owner of Epstein’s $56 million Manhattan townhouse, which Wexner transferred to an Epstein-controlled entity for free. ..."
"... The 1996 Times article also noted that, after Wexner bought the residence for $13.2 million in 1989, he spent millions more decorating and furnishing the home, including the addition of the electronic equipment in the “James Bond” bathroom, only to apparently never live in it. ..."
"... Farmer’s account strongly suggests that, given the behavior of his personal security staff at his mansion following Epstein’s alleged assault on Farmer, Wexner was well aware of Epstein’s predatory behavior towards young women. This is compounded by claims made by Alan Dershowitz — a former lawyer for and friend of Epstein’s, who has also been accused of raping underage girls — that Wexner has also been accused of raping underage girls exploited by Epstein on at least seven occasions. ..."
"... The report, titled “ Shapiro Homicide Investigation: Analysis and Hypothesis ,” names Leslie Wexner as linked “with associates reputed to be organized crime figures” and also lists the names of businessman Jack Kessler, former Columbus City Council President and Wexner associate Jerry Hammond, and former Columbus City Council member Les Wright as also being involved in Shapiro’s murder. ..."
"... As to Wexner’s alleged links to organized crime, the report focuses on the close business relationship between Wexner’s The Limited and Francis Walsh, whose trucking company “[had] done an excess of 90 percent of the Limited’s trucking business around the time of Shapiro’s murder,” according to the report. Walsh was named in a 1988 indictment as a “co-conspirator” of Genovese crime family boss Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno, whose long-time lawyer was Roy Cohn; and the Shapiro murder report stated that Walsh was “still considered associates of the Genovese/LaRocca crime family, and Walsh was still providing truck transportation for The Limited.” ..."
"... According to a source who viewed a copy of the NSA transcript of the conversation, the intelligence officer, speaking in Hebrew, said, ‘The ambassador wants me to go to Mega to get a copy of this letter.’ The source said the supervisor in Tel Aviv rejected the request, saying, ‘This is not something we use Mega for.’” ..."
"... Almost one year to the day after the “Mega” spy scandal broke, the Wall Street Journal was the first outlet to report on the existence of a little-known organization of billionaires that was “informally” called the Mega Group and had been founded years prior in 1991. The report made no mention of the spy scandal that had spread concerns of Israeli espionage in the U.S. only a year prior. However, the group’s distinctive “informal” name and the connections of its members to the Mossad and to high-ranking Israeli politicians, including prime ministers, raise the possibility that “Mega” was not an individual, as the FBI and NSA had believed, but a group. ..."
"... Netanyahu was close enough to Lauder that he personally enlisted Lauder and George Nader to serve as his peace envoys to Syria. ..."
"... Nader, who was connected to the Trump 2016 campaign and Trump ally and Blackwater founder Erik Prince, was recently hit with federal child sex trafficking charges last month, soon after Jeffrey Epstein had been arrested on similar charges. At the time Nader was picked to work with Lauder on Netanyahu’s behalf, he had already been caught possessing large amounts of child pornography on two separate occasions, first in 1984 and later in 1990. ..."
"... Maxwell was also a close associate and friend of Israeli “superspy” Rafi Eitan, who, as previously mentioned, was Jonathan Pollard’s handler and who had previously worked directly with Meyer Lansky. ..."
"... With Inslaw out of the way, Brian sold the software all over the world. Eitan later recruited Robert Maxwell to become another Promis salesman, which he did remarkably well, even succeeding in selling the software to Soviet intelligence and conspiring with Republican Texas Senator John Tower to have the software adopted by the U.S. government laboratory at Los Alamos. Dozens of countries used the software on their most carefully guarded computer systems, unaware that Mossad now had access to everything Promis touched. ..."
"... According to journalist Robert Fisk , Maxwell was also involved in the Mossad abduction of Israeli nuclear weapons whistleblower Vanunu Mordechai. Mordechai had attempted to provide the media with information on the extent of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, which was eventually published by the Sunday Times of London . Yet, Mordechai had also contacted the Daily Mirror with the information, the Mirror being an outlet that was owned by Maxwell and whose foreign editor was a close Maxwell associate and alleged Mossad asset, Nicholas Davies. Journalist Seymour Hersh alleged that Davies had also been involved in Israeli arms deals. ..."
"... Per Fisk, it was Maxwell who contacted the Israeli Embassy in London and told them of Mordechai’s activities. This led to Mordechai’s entrapment by a female Mossad agent who seduced him as part of a “honey trap” operation that led to his kidnapping and later imprisonment in Israel. Mordechai served an 18-year sentence, 12 years of which were in solitary confinement. ..."
"... According to authors Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, Maxwell had sealed his own fate when he attempted to threaten top Mossad officials with the exposure of certain operations if they did not help him rescue his media empire from crippling debt and financial difficulties. Many of Maxwell’s creditors , who had grown increasingly displeased with the media mogul, were Israeli and several of them were alleged to be Mossad-connected themselves. ..."
"... Another attendee of the Maxwell yacht party was former Secretary of the Navy and former Henry Kissinger staffer Jon Lehman, who would go on to associate with the controversial neoconservative think tank, Project for a New American Century. Prior to being secretary of the Navy, Lehman had been president of the Abington Corporation, which hired arch-neocon Richard Perle to manage the portfolio of Israeli arms dealers Shlomo Zabludowicz and his son Chaim, who paid Ablington $10,000 month. A scandal arose when those payments continued after both Lehman and Perle joined the Reagan Department of Defense and while Perle was working to persuade the Pentagon to buy arms from companies linked to Zabludowicz. Perle had been part of the Reagan transition team along with Roy Cohn’s long-time friend and law partner Tom Bolan (another Maxwell yacht guest). ..."
"... Even though Jeffrey Epstein appears to have had ties to the Mossad, this series has revealed that the networks to which Epstein was connected were not Mossad-exclusive, as many of the individuals close to Epstein — Lesie Wexner, for instance — were part of a mob-connected class of oligarchs with deep ties to both the U.S. and Israel. ..."
"... Ultimately, the picture painted by the evidence is not a direct tie to a single intelligence agency but a web linking key members of the Mega Group, politicians, and officials in both the U.S. and Israel, and an organized-crime network with deep business and intelligence ties in both nations. ..."
A
s billionaire pedophile and alleged sex-trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein sits in prison, reports
have continued to surface about his reported links to intelligence, his financial ties to
several companies and “charitable” foundations, and his friendships with the rich
and powerful as well as top politicians.
While Part
I and Part
II of this series, “The Jeffrey Epstein Scandal: Too Big to Fail,” have focused
on the widespread nature of sexual blackmail operations in recent American history and their
ties to the heights of American political power and the U.S. intelligence community, one key
aspect of Epstein’s own sex-trafficking and blackmail operation that warrants examination
is Epstein’s ties to Israeli intelligence and his ties to the “informal”
pro-Israel philanthropist faction known as “the Mega Group.”
The Mega Group’s role in the Epstein case has garnered some attention, as
Epstein’s main financial patron for decades, billionaire Leslie Wexner, was a co-founder
of the group that unites several well-known businessmen with a penchant for pro-Israel and
ethno-philanthropy (i.e., philanthropy benefiting a single ethnic or ethno-religious group).
However, as this report will show, another uniting factor among Mega Group members is deep ties
to organized crime, specifically the organized crime network discussed in Part
I of this series, which was largely led by notorious American mobster Meyer Lansky.
By virtue of the role of many Mega Group members as major political donors in both the U.S.
and Israel, several of its most notable members have close ties to the governments of both
countries as well as their intelligence communities. As this report and a subsequent report
will show, the Mega Group also had close ties to two businessmen who worked for Israel’s
Mossad — Robert Maxwell and Marc Rich — as well as to top Israeli politicians,
including past and present prime ministers with deep ties to Israel’s intelligence
community.
One of those businessmen working for the Mossad, Robert Maxwell, will be discussed at length
in this report. Maxwell, who was a business partner of Mega Group co-founder Charles Bronfman,
aided the successful Mossad plot to plant a trapdoor in U.S.-created software that was then
sold to governments and companies throughout the world. That plot’s success was largely
due to the role of a close associate of then-President Ronald Reagan and an American politician
close to Maxwell, who later helped aid Reagan in the cover-up of the Iran Contra scandal.
Years later, Maxwell’s daughter — Ghislaine Maxwell — would join Jeffrey
Epstein’s “inner circle” at the same time Epstein was bankrolling a similar
software program now being marketed for critical electronic infrastructure in the U.S. and
abroad. That company has deep and troubling connections to Israeli military intelligence,
associates of the Trump administration, and the Mega Group.
Epstein appears to have ties to Israeli intelligence and has well-documented ties to
influential Israeli politicians and the Mega Group. Yet, those entities are not isolated in and
of themselves, as many also connect to the organized crime network and powerful alleged
pedophiles discussed in previous installments of this series.
Perhaps the best illustration of how the connections between many of these players often
meld together can be seen in Ronald Lauder: a Mega Group member, former member of the Reagan
administration, long-time donor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s
Likud Party, as well as a long-time friend of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn.
From cosmetics
heir to political player
One often overlooked yet famous client and friend of Roy Cohn is the billionaire heir to the
Estee Lauder cosmetics fortune, Ronald Lauder. Lauder is often described in the press as a
“leading Jewish philanthropist” and is the president of the World Jewish Congress,
yet his many media profiles tend to leave out his highly political past.
In a
statement given by Lauder to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman in 2018, the
cosmetics heir noted that he has known Trump for over 50 years, going back at least to the
early 1970s. According to Lauder, his relationship with Trump began when Trump was a student at
the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, which Lauder also
attended.
Image deleted: President-elect Trump walks with Ronald Lauder after meeting at Mar-a-Lago, Dec. 28, 2016,
in Palm Beach, Fla. Evan Vucci | AP
Though the exact nature of their early friendship is unclear, it is evident that they shared
many of the same connections, including to the man who would later count them both as his
clients, Roy Cohn. While much has been said of the ties between Cohn and Trump, Cohn was
particularly close to Lauder’s mother, Estee Lauder (born Josephine Mentzer). Estee was
even counted among Cohn’s most high-profile friends in
his New York Times obituary .
A small window into the Lauder-Cohn relationship surfaced briefly in a
2016 article in Politico about a 1981 dinner party held at Cohn’s weekend home
in Greenwich, Connecticut. The party was attended by Ronald Lauder’s parents, Estee and
Joe, as well as Trump and his then-wife Ivana, who had
a weekend home just two miles away. That party was held soon after Cohn had helped Reagan
secure the presidency and had reached the height of his political influence. At the party, Cohn
offered toasts to Reagan and to then-Senator for New York Alfonse D’Amato, who
would later urge Ronald Lauder to run for political office.
Two years later, in 1983, Ronald Lauder — whose only professional experience at that
point was working for his parent’s cosmetics company — was appointed to serve as United
States Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs. Soon after his
appointment, he served on the
Dinner Tribute Committee for a dinner hosted by the Jewish fraternal and strongly pro-Israel
organization B’nai B’rith, the parent organization of the controversial
Anti-Defamation League (ADL), in Roy Cohn’s honor. Cohn’s influential father,
Albert Cohn, was the long-time
president of B’nai B’rith’s powerful New England-New York chapter and Roy
Cohn himself was a member of B’nai B’rith’s Banking and Finance Lodge.
The dinner specifically sought
to honor Cohn for his pro-Israel advocacy and his efforts to “fortify”
Israel’s economy, and its honorary chairmen included media mogul Rupert Murdoch, Donald
Trump and then-head of Bear Stearns Alan Greenberg, all of whom are
connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
During his time as deputy assistant secretary of defense, Lauder was also very active in
Israeli politics and had already become an ally of the then-Israeli representative to the
United Nations and future prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Lauder would go on to
be one of the most important individuals in Netanyahu’s rise to power, particularly
during his upset victory in 1996, and a major financier of
Israel’s right-wing Likud Party.
In 1986, the year that Roy Cohn died, Lauder left his post at the Pentagon and became the
U.S. ambassador to Austria, where his tenure was shaped by
his confrontations with the then-Austrian president and former Nazi collaborator, Kurt
Waldheim. Lauder’s interest in Austrian politics has continued well into recent years,
culminating in accusations that he sought
to manipulate Austrian elections in 2012.
After leaving his ambassadorship, Lauder
founded the Ronald S. Lauder Foundation in 1987 and later went on to run for Mayor of New
York against Rudy Giuliani in 1989. Lauder
was encouraged to run by then-Senator Alfonse D’Amato, who had close ties to Roy Cohn
and his long-time law partner Tom Bolan, who was
D’Amato’s adviser . At the aforementioned 1983 B’nai B’rith dinner
honoring Cohn, D’Amato was the featured speaker.
The likely reason was that Giuliani, though once an ally of the “Roy Cohn
machine,” was at the time
deeply disliked by the late Cohn’s associates for prosecuting Cohn’s former law
partner, Stanley Friedman, for racketeering, conspiracy and other charges. Giuliani also had a
history of bitter disagreements with D’Amato. Lauder’s primary campaign, though
unsuccessful, was noted for its viciousness and its cost, as it
burned through more than $13 million.
A few years later, in the early 1990s, Lauder would join a newly formed group that has long
evaded scrutiny from the media but has recently become of interest in connection with the
Jeffrey Epstein scandal: the Mega Group.
Lauder, Epstein and the mysterious Austrian
passport
Before getting to the Mega Group, it is worth noting one particular act apparently
undertaken by Lauder while he was U.S. ambassador to Austria that has recently come to light in
relation to the arrest in early July of Jeffrey Epstein, a finding first reported by journalist
Edward Szall. When police recently discovered an Austrian passport with Epstein’s picture
and a fake name after raiding his Manhattan residence, the source and purpose of the passport
came under media scrutiny.
According to the Associated Press ,
Epstein’s defense lawyers specifically argued that “a friend gave it to him
[Epstein] in the 1980s after some Jewish-Americans were informally advised to carry
identification bearing a non-Jewish name when traveling internationally during a period when
hijackings were more common.” This claim appears to be related to concerns that followed
the hijacking
of Air France Flight 139 in 1976 when Israeli and Jewish hostages were separated from other
hostages based largely on the passports in their possession.
Given that Epstein was unable to meet the conventional qualifications for an Austrian
passport — including long-term residency in Austria (the passport lists him as a resident
of Saudi Arabia) and fluency in German — it appears that the only way to have acquired an
Austrian passport was by unconventional means, meaning assistance from a well-connected
Austrian official or foreign diplomat with clout in Austria.
Image deleted: Ronald Lauder, right, and Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima pose with students from the
Lauder Chabad School in Vienna, Austria in 1999. Martin Gnedt | AP
Lauder, then-ambassador to Austria for the Reagan administration, would have been
well-positioned to acquire such a passport, particularly for the reason cited by
Epstein’s attorneys that Jewish-Americans could be targeted during travel, and in light
of Lauder’s very public concerns over threats Jews face from certain terror groups.
Furthermore, the passport had been issued in 1987, when Lauder was still serving as an
ambassador.
In addition, Lauder
was well-connected to Epstein’s former patron — former head of Bear Stearns
Alan Greenberg, who had hired Epstein in the late 1970s immediately after the latter was fired
from the Dalton School — and Donald Trump,
another friend of Lauder and Greenberg who began his friendship with Epstein in 1987, the
same year the fake Austrian passport was issued. In 1987, Epstein also began his relationship
with his principal financier, Leslie Wexner, who is also closely associated with Lauder (though
some sources claim that Epstein and Wexner first met in 1985 but that their strong business
relationship was not established until 1987).
Though Epstein’s defense attorney declined to reveal the identity of the
“friend” who provided him with the fake Austrian passport, Lauder was both
well-positioned to acquire it in Austria and also deeply connected to the Mega Group, which was
co-founded by Epstein’s patron Leslie Wexner and to which Epstein has many connections.
These connections to both the Austrian government and to Epstein’s mentor make Lauder the
most likely person to have acquired the document on Epstein’s behalf.
Furthermore, Epstein and the Mega Group’s ties to the Israeli intelligence agency,
Mossad, also suggest Lauder was involved in procuring the passport, in light of his close ties
to the Israeli government and the fact that Mossad
has a history of using ambassadors abroad to procure false, foreign passports for its
operatives.
Lauder himself has been alleged to have ties to Mossad, as he is a long-time funder of IDC
Herzliya, an Israeli university
closely associated with Mossad and their recruiters as well as Israeli military
intelligence. Lauder even founded IDC Herzliya’s
Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy.
Furthermore, Lauder co-founded the Eastern European broadcasting network CETV with Mark
Palmer, a former U.S. diplomat, Kissinger aide and Reagan speechwriter. Palmer is better known
for co-founding the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization often described as
an accessory to U.S. intelligence, and one whose first president confessed to
the Washington Post that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years
ago by the CIA.” A 2001 report in the Evening Standard noted that Epstein
once
claimed that during the 1980s he worked for the CIA, but Epstein later backed away from
that assertion.
The origins of the Mega Group Mafia
The Mega Group — a secretive group of billionaires to which Lauder belongs — was
formed in 1991 by Charles Bronfman and Leslie Wexner, the latter of whom has received
considerable media scrutiny following the July arrest of his former protege Jeffrey Epstein.
Media profiles
of the group paint it as “a loosely organized club of 20 of the nation’s wealthiest
and most influential Jewish businessmen” focused on “philanthropy and
Jewishness,” with membership dues upwards of $30,000 per year. Yet several of its most
prominent members have ties to organized crime.
Mega Group members founded and/or are closely associated with some of the most well-known
pro-Israel organizations. For instance, members Charles Bronfman and Michael Steinhardt
formed
Birthright Taglit with the backing of then- and current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Steinhardt, an atheist, has stated that his motivation in helping to found the group was to
advance his own belief that devotion
to and faith in the state of Israel should serve as “a substitute for [Jewish]
theology.”
Other well-known groups associated with the Mega Group include the World Jewish Congress
— whose past president, Edgar Bronfman, and current president, Ronald Lauder, are both
Mega Group members — and B’nai B’rith, particularly its spin-off known as the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The Bronfman brothers were major donors to the ADL, with Edgar
Bronfman serving as the
ADL’s honorary national vice-chair for several years.
Image deleted: Former Israeli president Shimon Peres, second from left, listens to Edgar Bronfman during a
1995 lunch thrown in Peres’ honor. From left are: Laurence Tisch, Chairman, President and
Chief executive officer of CBS; Israeli Ambassador to the United States. Itamar Rabinowitz and
Bronfman. David Karp | AP
When Edgar Bronfman died in 2013, long-time ADL Director Abe Foxman said ,
“Edgar was for many years Chair of our Liquor Industry Division, Chair of our New York
Appeal, and one of our most significant benefactors.” Other Mega Group members that are
donors and major supporters of the ADL include
Ronald Lauder ,
Michael Steinhardt and the late Max
Fisher . As previously mentioned, Roy Cohn’s father was a long-time leader of
B’nai B’rith’s influential New England-New York chapter and Cohn was later a
celebrated member of its banking and finance lodge.
In addition, Mega Group members have also been key players in the pro-Israel lobby in the
United States. For instance, Max Fisher of the Mega Group
founded the National Jewish Coalition, now
known as the Republican Jewish Coalition — the main pro-Israel
neoconservative political lobbying group , known for its support of hawkish policies, and
whose current chief patrons, Sheldon Adelson and Bernard Marcus, are among Donald Trump’s
top donors.
Though the Mega Group has officially existed only since 1991, the use of
“philanthropy” to provide cover for more unscrupulous lobbying or business
activities was pioneered decades earlier by Sam Bronfman, the father of Mega Group members
Edgar and Charles Bronfman. While other North American elites like J.D. Rockefeller had
previously used philanthropic giving as a means of laundering their reputations,
Bronfman’s approach to philanthropy was unique because it was focused on giving
specifically to other members of his own ethno-religious background.
Sam Bronfman, as was detailed in Part
I of this series, had long-standing deep ties to organized crime, specifically Meyer
Lanksy’s organized crime syndicate. Yet, Bronfman’s private ambition, according to
those close to him, was to become a respected member of high society. As a consequence,
Bronfman worked hard to remove the stain that his mob associations had left on his public
reputation in Canada and abroad. He accomplished this by becoming a leader in Canada’s
Zionist movement and, by the end of the 1930s, he
was head of the Canadian Jewish Congress and had begun to make a name for himself as a
philanthropist for Jewish causes.
Yet even some of Bronfman’s activism and philanthropy had hints of the mobster-like
reputation he tried so hard to shake. For instance, Bronfman was actively involved in the
illegal shipping of arms to Zionist paramilitaries in Palestine prior to 1948, specifically as
a co-founder of the National Conference for Israeli and Jewish Rehabilitation that
smuggled weapons to the paramilitary group Haganah.
At the same time Bronfman was abetting the illegal smuggling of weapons to the Haganah, his
associates in the criminal underworld were doing the same. After World War II, close aides of
David Ben-Gurion, who would later become the first prime minister of Israel and was
instrumental in the founding of Mossad, forged tight-knit
relationships with Meyer Lansky, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, Mickey Cohen and
other Jewish gangsters of the period. They used their clandestine networks to establish a vast
arms smuggling network between the United States and Zionist settlements in Palestine, arming
both the Haganah and the Irgun paramilitary groups. As noted in Part I of this report, at the
same time these gangsters were aiding the illegal arming of ZIonsit paramilitaries, they were
strengthening their ties to U.S. intelligence that had first been formally (though covertly)
established in World War II.
After Israel was founded, Sam Bronfman worked with future Israeli Prime Minister
Shimon Peres to negotiate the sale of Canadian armaments at half-price to Israel and the
bargain weapons purchase was paid for entirely by a fundraising dinner hosted by Bronfman and
his wife. Many years later, Peres would go on
to introduce another future prime minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, to Jeffrey Epstein.
The rest of the Bronfman family’s march on “the road to respectability”
was undertaken by Bronfman’s children, who married into aristocratic families such as
the
European Rothschilds and the Wall Street “royalty” of
the Lehmans and the Loebs .
The Bronfmans’ newfound respectability did not mean that their association with the
Lansky-led criminal empire had dissolved. Indeed, prominent members of the Seagrams dynasty
came under fire in the 1960s and 1970s for their
close association with Willie “Obie” Obront, a major figure in Canadian
organized crime, whom Canadian professor Stephen Schneider has referred to as the Meyer Lansky
of Canada.
However, Edgar and Charles Bronfman were hardly the only members of the Mega Group with deep
and long-standing ties to the Lansky-led National Crime Syndicate. Indeed, one of the
group’s prominent members, hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt, opened up about his own
family ties to Lansky in his autobiography No Bull: My Life in and out the Markets ,
where he noted that his father, Sol “Red McGee” Steinhardt, was Lansky’s jewel
fence of choice and
a major player in New York’s criminal underworld. Sol Steinhardt was also his
son’s first client on Wall Street and helped him jumpstart his career in finance.
The ties between the Mega Group and the National Crime Syndicate don’t stop there.
Another prominent member of the Mega Group with ties to this same criminal network is Max
Fisher, who has been described as Wexner’s mentor and is also alleged
to have worked with Detroit’s “Purple Gang” during Prohibition and
beyond. The Purple Gang were part of the network that smuggled Bronfman liquor from Canada into
the United State during Prohibition, and one of its founders, Abe Bernstein, was
a close associate of both Meyer Lansky and Moe Dalitz. Fisher was a
key adviser to several U.S. presidents, beginning with Dwight D. Eisenhower, as well as to
Henry Kissinger.
Image removed: Max Fisher, center, and Henry Kissinger, right, meet with leaders of Jewish organizations
prior to Kissinger’s 1975 Middle East trip. Henry Burroughs | AP
In addition to Fisher, Mega Group member Ronald Lauder was connected to Roy Cohn and Tom
Bolan, both of whom were closely associated with this same Lansky-led crime network (see
Part
I and
Part
II ) and who regularly represented top Mafia figures in court. Furthermore, another member
of the Mega Group, director Steven Spielberg, is
a
well-known protege of Lew Wasserman, the mob-connected media mogul and long-time backer of
Ronald Reagan’s film and later political career, discussed in
Part
II of this series.
One surprise connection to Cohn involves Mega Group member, and former president of U.S.
weapons firm General Dynamics, Lester Crown, whose brother-in-law is David Schine, Cohn’s
confidant and alleged lover during the McCarthy hearings, whose
relationship with Cohn helped bring about the downfall of McCarthyism.
Another member of the Mega Group worth noting is Laurence Tisch, who owned CBS News
for several years and founded Loews Corporation. Tisch is notable for his work
for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the CIA, where Donald Barr,
who hired Epstein at the Dalton School, also served and which forged ties with Lansky’s
criminal empire during World War II.
Wexner’s mansions and the Shapiro murder
Leslie “Les” Wexner, the other Mega Group co-founder, also has ties to organized
crime. Wexner’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein have come under scrutiny following the
latter’s recent arrest, as Wexner was the only publicly acknowledged client of
Epstein’s suspicious hedge fund, the source of much of this wealth, and the previous
owner of Epstein’s $56 million Manhattan townhouse, which Wexner transferred to an
Epstein-controlled entity for free.
Before Epstein received the townhouse, Wexner appears to have used the residence for some
unconventional purposes, noted in a 1996 New York
Times article on the then-Wexner-owned residence, which included “a bathroom
reminiscent of James Bond movies: hidden beneath a stairway, lined with lead to provide shelter
from attack and supplied with closed-circuit television screens and a telephone, both concealed
in a cabinet beneath the sink.” The Times article does not speculate as to the
purpose of this equipment, though the allusion to famous fictional superspy James Bond suggests
that it may have been used to snoop on guests or conduct electronic surveillance.
The 1996 Times article also noted that, after Wexner bought the residence for $13.2
million in 1989, he spent millions more decorating and furnishing the home, including the
addition of the electronic equipment in the “James Bond” bathroom, only to
apparently never live in it. The Times , which interviewed Epstein for the piece, quoted
him as saying that “Les never spent more than two months there.” Epstein told the
Times , which identified Epstein as Wexner’s “protege and one of his
financial advisers,” that the house, by that time, already belonged to him.
That same year, Epstein was commissioning artwork for Wexner’s Ohio mansion. A
recent
article from the Times noted that:
In the summer of 1996, Maria Farmer was working on an art project for Mr. Epstein in
Mr. Wexner’s Ohio mansion. While she was there, Mr. Epstein sexually assaulted her,
according to an affidavit Ms. Farmer filed earlier this year in federal court in Manhattan.
She said that she fled the room and called the police, but that Mr. Wexner’s security
staff refused to let her leave for 12 hours.”
Farmer’s account strongly suggests that, given the behavior of his personal security
staff at his mansion following Epstein’s alleged assault on Farmer, Wexner was well
aware of Epstein’s predatory behavior towards young women. This is compounded by claims
made by Alan Dershowitz — a former lawyer for and friend of Epstein’s, who has
also been accused of raping underage girls — that Wexner has also been accused of raping underage
girls exploited by Epstein on at least seven occasions.
The presence of the electronic equipment in his home’s bathroom, other oddities
related to the townhouse, and aspects of the links between Epstein and Wexner suggest there is
more to Wexner, who has rather successfully developed a public image of a respectable
businessman and philanthropist, much like other prominent members of the Mega
Group.
Image removed: Leslie Wexner and his wife Abigail tour the “Transfigurations” exhibit at the
Wexner Center for the Arts. Jay LaPrete | AP
However, bits and pieces of Wexner’s private secrets have occasionally bubbled up,
only to be subjected to rapid cover-ups amidst concerns of “libeling” the powerful
and well-connected billionaire “philanthropist.”
In 1985, Columbus (Ohio) lawyer Arthur Shapiro was murdered in broad daylight
at point-blank range in what was largely referred to as a “mob style murder.” The
homicide still remains unsolved, likely due to the fact that then-Columbus Police Chief James
Jackson ordered the destruction of key documents of his department’s investigation into
the murder.
Jackson’s ordering of the documents’ destruction came to light years later in
1996, when he was under investigation for corruption. According to the Columbus Dispatch ,
Jackson justified the destruction of one “ viable and valuable ” report
because he felt that it “was so filled with wild speculation about prominent business
leaders that it was potentially libelous.” The nature of this “wild
speculation” was that “millionaire businessmen in Columbus and Youngstown were
linked to the ‘mob-style murder.’”
Though Jackson’s efforts were meant to keep this “libelous” report far
from public view, it was eventually obtained by Bob Fitrakis —
attorney, journalist, and executive director of the Columbus Institute for Contemporary
Journalism — after he was “accidentally” sent a copy of the report in 1998 as
part of a public records request.
The report, titled “ Shapiro Homicide Investigation: Analysis and
Hypothesis ,” names Leslie Wexner as linked “with associates reputed to be
organized crime figures” and also lists the names of businessman Jack Kessler, former
Columbus City Council President and Wexner associate Jerry Hammond, and former Columbus City
Council member Les Wright as also being involved in Shapiro’s murder.
The report also noted that Arthur Shapiro’s law firm — Schwartz, Shapiro, Kelm
& Warren — represented Wexner’s company, The Limited, and states that
“prior to his death, Arthur Shapiro managed this account [The Limited] for the law
firm.” It also noted that, at the time of his death, Shapiro “was the subject of an
investigation by the Internal Revenue Service because he had failed to file income tax returns
for some seven years prior to his death, and he had invested in some questionable tax
shelters.” It also stated that his death prevented Shapiro from his planned testimony at
a grand jury hearing about these “questionable tax shelters.”
As to Wexner’s alleged links to organized crime, the report focuses on the close
business relationship between Wexner’s The Limited and Francis Walsh, whose trucking
company “[had] done an excess of 90 percent of the Limited’s trucking business
around the time of Shapiro’s murder,” according to the report. Walsh was named in
a 1988 indictment as a “co-conspirator” of Genovese crime family boss Anthony
“Fat Tony” Salerno, whose long-time lawyer was Roy Cohn; and the Shapiro murder
report stated that Walsh was “still considered associates of the Genovese/LaRocca crime
family, and Walsh was still providing truck transportation for The Limited.”
Notably, the Genovese crime family has long formed a key part of the National Crime
Syndicate, as its former head, Charles “Lucky” Luciano, co-created the criminal organization
with his close friend Meyer Lansky. Upon Luciano’s imprisonment and subsequent
deportation from the United States, Lansky took over the syndicate’s U.S. operations and
his association with Luciano’s successors continued until Lansky’s death in
1983.
The “Mega” Mystery and the Mossad
In May 1997, the Washington Post broke
an explosive story — long since forgotten — based on an intercepted phone call
made between a Mossad official in the U.S. and his superior in Tel Aviv that discussed the
Mossad’s efforts to obtain a secret U.S. government document. According to the
Post, the Mossad official stated during the phone call that “Israeli Ambassador
Eliahu Ben Elissar had asked him whether he could obtain a copy of the letter given to
[Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat by [then-Secretary of State Warren] Christopher on Jan. 16,
the day after the Hebron accord was signed by Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu.”
The Post article continued:
According to a source who viewed a copy of the NSA transcript of the conversation, the
intelligence officer, speaking in Hebrew, said, ‘The ambassador wants me to go to Mega
to get a copy of this letter.’ The source said the supervisor in Tel Aviv rejected the
request, saying, ‘This is not something we use Mega for.’”
The leaked communication led to an investigation that sought to identify an individual
code-named “Mega” that the Post said “may be someone in the U.S.
government who has provided information to the Israelis in the past,” a concern that
subsequently spawned a fruitless FBI investigation. The Mossad later claimed that
“Mega” was merely a codeword for the U.S.’ CIA, but the FBI and NSA were
unconvinced by that claim and
believed that it was a senior U.S. government official that had potentially once been
involved in working with Jonathan Pollard, the former U.S. naval intelligence analyst later
convicted of spying for the Mossad.
Almost one year to the day after the “Mega” spy scandal broke, the Wall
Street Journal was the first outlet to report on the
existence of a little-known organization of billionaires that was “informally”
called the Mega Group and had been founded years prior in 1991. The report made no mention of
the spy scandal that had spread concerns of Israeli espionage in the U.S. only a year prior.
However, the group’s distinctive “informal” name and the connections of its
members to the Mossad and to high-ranking Israeli politicians, including prime ministers, raise
the possibility that “Mega” was not an individual, as the FBI and NSA had believed,
but a group.
In 1997, when the “Mega” spy scandal broke, Netanyahu had recently become prime
minister of Israel after an upset victory, a victory that was
largely credited to one well-connected Netanyahu backer in particular, Ronald Lauder.
Beyond being a major donor, Lauder had brought Arthur Finklestein on to work for
Netanyahu’s 1996 campaign, whose strategies were credited for Netanyahu’s surprise
win. Netanyahu was close enough to Lauder that he personally enlisted Lauder and George Nader
to serve as his peace envoys to Syria.
Image removed: Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara with Ronald Lauder in 1997. Photo | Reuters
Nader, who was connected to the Trump 2016 campaign and Trump ally and Blackwater
founder Erik Prince, was
recently hit with federal child sex trafficking charges last month, soon after Jeffrey
Epstein had been arrested on similar charges. At the time Nader was picked to work with Lauder
on Netanyahu’s behalf, he had
already been caught possessing large amounts of child pornography on two separate
occasions, first in 1984 and later in 1990.
This strong connection between Netanyahu and Lauder during the time of the 1997
“Mega” spy scandal is important considering Mossad answers directly to
Israel’s prime minister.
Another possible connection between the Mega Group and the Mossad owes to the Mega
Group’s ties to Meyer Lansky’s criminal network. As was detailed in Part I, Lansky
had established deep ties to U.S. intelligence after World War II and was also connected to the
Mossad through Mossad official Tibor Rosenbaum, whose bank was frequently used by Lansky to
launder money. In addition, Lansky collaborated on at least one occasion with notorious Mossad
“superspy” Rafi Eitan, who he
helped acquire sensitive electronic equipment possessed only by the CIA but coveted by
Israeli intelligence. Eitan is best known in the U.S. for being the Mossad handler of Jonathan
Pollard.
Notably, Eitan was the main source of
claims that the code-word “Mega” used by the Mossad officials in 1997 referred to
the CIA and not to a potential source in the U.S. government once linked to Pollard’s
spying activities, making his claims as to the true meaning of the term somewhat dubious.
Given that the organized crime network tied to the Mega Group had ties to both U.S. and
Israeli intelligence, the “Mega” codeword could plausibly have referred to this
secretive group of billionaires. More supporting evidence for this theory comes from the fact
that prominent members of the Mega Group were business partners of Mossad agents, including
media mogul Robert Maxwell and commodities trader Marc Rich.
The mysterious Maxwells
The Maxwell family has become a source of renewed media interest following Jeffrey
Epstein’s arrest, as Ghislaine Maxwell, long described in the media as a British
“socialite,” was publicly cited as Epstein’s long-time “on and
off” girlfriend, and Epstein’s victims, as well as former wives of Epstein’s
friends, have claimed that she was Epstein’s “pimp” and procured underage
girls for his sexual blackmail operation. Ghislaine Maxwell is also alleged to have
engaged in the rape of the girls she procured for Epstein and to have used them to produce
child pornography.
Ghislaine was the favorite and youngest daughter of media mogul Robert Maxwell. Maxwell,
born Jan Ludvick Hoch, had joined the British Army in World War II. Afterwards, according to
authors John
Loftus and Mark Aarons , he greatly influenced the Czechoslovakian government’s
decision to arm Zionist paramilitaries during the 1948 war that resulted in Israel’s
creation as a state, and Maxwell himself was also involved in the smuggling of aircraft parts
to Israel.
Around this time, Maxwell was approached by British intelligence outfit MI6 and offered a
position that Maxwell ultimately declined. MI6 then classified
him as “Zionist — loyal only to Israel” and made him a person of interest. He
later became an agent of the Mossad, according to several books including Seymour Hersh’s
The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, and
Robert Maxwell: Israel’s Superspy by Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon.
Mossad was financing many of its operations in Europe from money stolen from
Maxwell’s newspaper pension fund. They got their hands on the funds almost as soon as
Maxwell made the purchase of the Mirror Newspaper Group with money lent to him by
Mossad.”
In exchange for his services, the Mossad helped Maxwell satisfy his sexual appetite during
his visits to Israel,
providing him with prostitutes, “the service maintained for blackmail
purposes.” It was later revealed that the hotel in which he stayed in Israel was bugged
with cameras, allowing the Mossad to acquire “a small library of video footage of Maxwell
in sexually compromising positions.” As with the CIA, the Mossad’s use of blackmail
against both friend and foe is well-documented
and known to be
extensive .
Maxwell was also a close associate and friend of Israeli “superspy” Rafi Eitan,
who, as previously mentioned, was Jonathan Pollard’s handler and who had previously
worked directly with Meyer Lansky. Eitan
had learned of a revolutionary new software being used by the U.S. government known as
“Promis” from Earl Brian, a long-time associate and aide to Ronald Reagan. Promis
is often considered the forerunner to the “Prism” software used by spy agencies
today and was developed by William Hamilton, who leased the software to the U.S. government
through his company, Inslaw, in 1982.
Image removed: Ariel Sharon (right)meets with Robert Maxwell in Jerusalem on Feb. 20, 1990. Photo | AP
According to author and former BBC investigative journalist Gordon Thomas, Brian
was angry that the U.S. Department of Justice was successfully using Promis to go after
organized crime and money-laundering activities and Eitan felt that the program could aid
Israel. At the time, Eitan was the director of the now defunct Israeli military intelligence
agency Lekem, which gathered scientific and technical intelligence abroad from both public and
covert sources, especially in relation to Israel’s nuclear weapons program.
A plan was hatched to
install a “trapdoor” into the software and then market Promis throughout the
world, providing the Mossad with invaluable intelligence on the operations of its enemies and
allies while also providing Eitan and Brian with copious amounts of cash. According to the
testimony of ex-Mossad official Ari Ben-Menashe, Brian
provided a copy of Promis to Israel’s military intelligence, which contacted an
Israeli American programmer living in California who then planted the “trapdoor” in
the software. The CIA was later said to have installed its own trapdoor in the software
but it is unknown if they did so with a version of the already bugged software and how widely
it was adopted relative to the version bugged by Israeli intelligence.
After the trapdoor was inserted, the problem became selling the bugged version of the
software to governments as well as private companies around the world, particularly in areas of
interest. Brian first attempted to buy out Inslaw and Promis and then use that same company to
sell the bugged version.
Unsuccessful, Brian turned to his close friend, then-Attorney General Ed Meese whose Justice
Department then abruptly refused to
make the payments to Inslaw that were stipulated by the contract, essentially using the
software for free, which Inslaw claimed to be theft. Some have speculated that Meese’s
role in that decision was shaped, not only by his friendship with Brian, but the fact that his
wife was a major investor in
Brian’s business ventures. Meese would later become an adviser to Donald Trump when he
was president-elect.
Inslaw was forced to declare bankruptcy as a result of Meese’s actions and sued the
Justice Department. The court later found that
the Meese-led department “took, converted, stole” the software through
“trickery, fraud and deceit.”
With Inslaw out of the way, Brian sold the software all over the world. Eitan later
recruited Robert Maxwell to become another Promis salesman, which he did remarkably well, even
succeeding in selling the software to Soviet intelligence and conspiring
with Republican Texas Senator John Tower to have the software adopted by the U.S.
government laboratory at Los Alamos. Dozens of countries used the software on their most
carefully guarded computer systems, unaware that Mossad now had access to everything Promis
touched.
Whereas the Mossad’s past reliance on gathering intelligence had relied on the same
tactics used by its equivalents in the U.S. and elsewhere, the widespread adoption of the
Promis software, largely through the actions of Earl Brian and Robert Maxwell, gave the Mossad
a way to gather not just troves of counterintelligence data, but also blackmail on other
intelligence agencies and powerful figures.
Indeed, Promis’ backdoor and adoption by intelligence agencies all over the world
essentially provided the Mossad with access to troves of blackmail that the CIA and FBI had
acquired on their friends and foes for over half a century. Strangely, in recent years, the FBI
has sought to
hide information related to Robert Maxwell’s connection to the Promis scandal.
According to journalist Robert
Fisk , Maxwell was also involved in the Mossad abduction of Israeli nuclear weapons
whistleblower Vanunu Mordechai. Mordechai had attempted to provide the media with information
on the extent of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, which was eventually published by the
Sunday Times of London . Yet, Mordechai had also contacted the Daily Mirror with
the information, the Mirror being an outlet that was owned by Maxwell and whose foreign
editor was a close Maxwell associate and alleged Mossad asset, Nicholas Davies. Journalist
Seymour Hersh alleged that Davies had also been involved in Israeli arms deals.
Per Fisk, it was Maxwell who contacted the Israeli Embassy in London and told them of
Mordechai’s activities. This led to Mordechai’s entrapment by a female Mossad agent
who seduced him as part of a “honey trap” operation that led to his kidnapping and
later imprisonment in Israel. Mordechai served an 18-year sentence, 12 years of which were in
solitary confinement.
Then, there is the issue of Maxwell’s death, widely cited by mainstream and
independent media alike as suspicious
and a potential homicide . According to authors Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, Maxwell
had sealed his own fate when he attempted to threaten top Mossad officials with the exposure of
certain operations if they did not help him rescue his media empire from crippling debt and
financial difficulties. Many of Maxwell’s
creditors , who had grown increasingly displeased with the media mogul, were Israeli and
several of them were alleged to be Mossad-connected themselves.
Thomas and Dillon argue in their
biography of Maxwell’s life that the Mossad felt that Maxwell had become more of a
liability than an asset and killed him on his yacht three months after he demanded the bailout.
On the other extreme are theories that suggest Maxwell committed suicide because of the
financial difficulties his empire faced.
Image removed: Ghislaine Maxwell, far right, Robert Maxwell’s daughter, looks on his casket is
unloaded from a plane in Jerusalem, Nov. 8, 1991. Heribert Proepper | AP
Some have taken Maxwell’s funeral held in Israel as the country’s
“official” confirmation of Maxwell’s service to the Mossad, as it was likened
to a state funeral and attended
by no less than six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence. During his funeral
service in Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized him and
stated : “He has done more for Israel than can today be said.” Other
eulogies were given by future Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert (then Health Minister) and Shimon
Peres, with the latter also praising
Maxwell’s “services” on behalf of Israel.
Swimming in the same
swamp
As he built his business empire — and even became a member of Parliament, Maxwell was
also doing work for Israeli intelligence, as several of the Israeli companies in which he
invested became fronts for the Mossad. In addition, as he became a media mogul, he developed a
bitter rivalry with Rupert Murdoch, a close friend of Roy Cohn and an influential figure in
American and British media.
Maxwell also partnered with the Bronfman brothers, Edgar and Charles — key figures in
the Mega Group. In 1989 Maxwell and Charles Bronfman
partnered up to bid on the Jerusalem Post newspaper and the Post described
the two men as “two of the world’s leading Jewish financiers” and their
interest in the venture as “developing The Jerusalem Post and expanding its
influence among world Jewry.” A year prior, Maxwell and Bronfman
had become top shareholders in the Israeli pharmaceutical company Teva.
Maxwell also worked with Charles Bronfman’s brother Edgar in the late 1980s to
convince the Soviet Union to allow Soviet Jews to immigrate to Israel. Edgar’s efforts in
this regard
have received more attention , as it was a defining moment of his decades-long presidency
of the World Jewish Congress, of which Ronald Lauder is currently president. Yet, Maxwell had
also made considerable
use of his contacts in the Soviet government in this effort.
Maxwell also moved in the circles of the network previously described in Parts I and II in
this series. A key example of this is the May 1989
party Maxwell hosted on his yacht, the Lady Ghislaine — named for his youngest
daughter and Epstein’s future “girlfriend.” Attendees of the party included
Roy Cohn’s protege Donald Trump and his long-time law partner Tom Bolan. A close friend
of Nancy Reagan was also present, journalist Mike Wallace, as was literary agent Mort Janklow,
who represented Ronald Reagan and two of Cohn’s closest friends: journalists William
Safire and Barbara Walters.
The CEO of what would soon become Time Warner, Steve Ross, was also invited to the exclusive
event. Ross’ presence is notable, as he had built his business empire largely through
his association with New York crime lords Manny Kimmel and Abner “Longy”
Zwillman. Zwillman was a close friend of Meyer Lansky, Michael Steinhardt’s father, and
Sam Bronfman, father of Edgar and Charles Bronfman.
Another attendee of the Maxwell yacht party was former Secretary of the Navy and former
Henry Kissinger staffer Jon Lehman, who would go on to associate with the controversial
neoconservative think tank, Project for a New American Century. Prior to being secretary of the
Navy, Lehman had been president of the Abington Corporation, which hired arch-neocon Richard
Perle to manage
the portfolio of Israeli arms dealers Shlomo Zabludowicz and his son Chaim, who paid
Ablington $10,000 month. A scandal arose when those
payments continued after both Lehman and Perle joined the Reagan Department of Defense and
while Perle was working to persuade the Pentagon to buy arms from companies linked to
Zabludowicz. Perle had been part of the Reagan transition team along with Roy Cohn’s
long-time friend and law partner Tom Bolan (another Maxwell yacht guest).
In addition to Lehman, another former Kissinger staffer, Thomas Pickering was present at
Maxwell’s yacht part. Pickering played a minor role in the Iran-Contra affair and, at the
time of the Maxwell yacht party, he was U.S. ambassador to Israel. Senator John Tower (R-TX),
who allegedly conspired with Maxwell in the Mossad-bugged Promis software at the Los Alamos
laboratories, was also present. Tower died just months before Maxwell in
a suspicious plane crash .
Ghislaine Maxwell was also at this rather notable event. After her father’s mysterious
death and alleged murder on the same yacht that bears her name in 1991, she quickly packed her
bags and moved to New York City. There, she soon made the acquaintance of Jeffrey Epstein and,
a few years later, developed close ties to the Clinton family, which will be discussed in the
next installment of this series.
Jeffrey Epstein and the new “Promis”
After it was revealed that Epstein had evaded stricter sentencing in 2008 due to his links
to “intelligence,” it was the Mossad ties of Ghislaine Maxwell’s father that
have led many to speculate that Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation was sharing
incriminating information with the Mossad. Former CBS executive producer and current
journalist for the media outlet Narativ , Zev Shalev, has since claimed that he
independently confirmed that Epstein was tied directly to the Mossad.
Image removed: Donald and Melania Trump with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the Mar-a-Lago club,
Palm Beach, Florida in 2000. Photo | Davidoff Studios
Epstein was a long-time friend of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who has
long-standing and deep ties to Israel’s intelligence community. Their decades-long
friendship has been the source of recent political attacks targeting Barak, who is running in
the Israeli elections against current Prime Minister Netanyahu later this year.
Barak is also close to Epstein’s chief patron and Mega Group member Leslie Wexner,
whose Wexner Foundation
gave Barak $2 million in 2004 for a still unspecified research program. According to Barak,
he was first introduced to Epstein by former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who eulogized
Robert Maxwell at his funeral and had decades-long ties with the Bronfman family going back to
the early 1950s. Peres was also a
frequent participant in programs funded by
Leslie Wexner in Israel and
worked closely with the Mossad for decades.
In 2015, a few years after Epstein’s release from prison following his conviction for
soliciting sex from a minor in 2008, Barak formed a company with Epstein with the chief purpose
of investing in an Israeli start-up then known as Reporty. That company, now called Carbyne,
sells its signature software to 911 call centers and emergency service providers and is also
available to consumers as an app that provides emergency services with access to a
caller’s camera and location and also runs any caller’s identity through any linked
government database. It has specifically been marketed by the company itself and the Israeli
press as a
solution to mass shootings in the
United States and is already being used by at least two U.S. counties.
Israeli media reported that Epstein and Barak were among the company’s largest
investors. Barak poured millions into the company and it was recently revealed by Haaretz
that a significant amount of Barak’s total investments in Carbyne was funded by Epstein,
making him a “ de facto partner” in the company. Barak is now Carbyne’s chairman .
The company’s executive team are all former members of different branches of Israeli
intelligence, including the elite military intelligence unit, Unit 8200, that is often likened
to Israel’s equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Carbyne’s
current CEO, Amir Elichai, served in Unit 8200 and tapped
former Unit 8200 commander Pinchas Buchris to serve as the
company’s director and on its board. In addition to Elichai, another Carbyne co-founder,
Lital Leshem , also
served in Unit 8200 and later worked for Israeli private spy company Black Cube. Leshem now
works for a subsidiary of Erik Prince’s company Frontier Services Group, according to the
independent media outlet Narativ .
The company also includes several tie-ins to the Trump administration, including Palantir
founder and Trump ally Peter Thiel — an investor in Carbyne. In addition,
Carbyne’s board of advisers
includes former Palantir employee Trae Stephens, who was a member of the Trump transition team,
as well as former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.
Trump donor and New York real-estate developer Eliot Tawill is also on Carbyne’s board , alongside Ehud Barak and
Pinchas Buchris.
Narativ , which wrote the first expose on Carbyne after Epstein’s arrest, noted
that the Chinese government uses a smartphone app very similar to Carbyne as part of its mass
surveillance apparatus, even though the original purpose of the app was for improved emergency
reporting. According to Narativ , the Chinese Carbyne-equivalent “monitors every
aspect of a user’s life, including personal conversations, power usage, and tracks a
user’s movement.”
Given the history of Robert Maxwell — the father of Epstein’s long-time
“girlfriend” and young-girl-procuring madam, Ghislaine Maxwell — in promoting
the sale of Carbyne’s modified Promis software, which was also marketed as a tool to
improve government efficacy but was actually a tool of mass surveillance for the benefit of
Israeli intelligence, the overlap between Carbyne and Promis is troubling and warrants further
investigation.
It is also worth noting that Unit 8200-connected tech start-ups are being widely integrated
into U.S. companies and have developed close ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex, with
Carbyne being just one example of that trend.
As MintPress
previously reported , Unit 8200-linked outfits like Team8 have recently hired former
National Security Agency (NSA) Director Mike Rogers as a senior advisor and gained prominent
Silicon Valley figures, including former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, as key investors. Many
American technology companies, from Intel to Google to Microsoft,
have merged with several Unit 8200-connected start-ups in recent years and have been moving
many key jobs and operations to Israel with
backing from key Republican donors like Paul Singer . Many of those same companies,
particularly Google and Microsoft, are also major U.S. government contractors.
Who was
Epstein really working for?
Even though Jeffrey Epstein appears to have had ties to the Mossad, this series has revealed
that the networks to which Epstein was connected were not Mossad-exclusive, as many of the
individuals close to Epstein — Lesie Wexner, for instance — were part of a
mob-connected class of oligarchs with deep ties to both the U.S. and Israel. As was discussed
in Part I of this series, the sharing of “intelligence” (i.e., blackmail) between
intelligence agencies and the same organized crime network connected to the Mega Group goes
back decades. With Leslie Wexner of the Mega Group as Epstein’s chief patron, as opposed
to a financier with direct ties to the Mossad, a similar relationship is more than likely in
the case of the sexual blackmail operation that Epstein ran.
Given that intelligence agencies in both the U.S. and elsewhere often conduct covert
operations for the benefit of oligarchs and large corporations as opposed to “national
security interest,” Epstein’s ties to the Mega Group suggest that this group holds
a unique status and influence in both the governments of the U.S. and of Israel, as well as in
other countries (e.g., Russia) that were not explored in this report. This is by virtue of
their role as key political donors in both countries, as well as the fact that several of them
own powerful companies or financial institutions in both countries. Indeed, many members of the
Mega Group have deep ties to Israel’s political class, including to Netanyahu and Ehud
Barak as well as to now-deceased figures like Shimon Peres, and to members of the American
political class.
Ultimately, the picture painted by the evidence is not a direct tie to a single intelligence
agency but a web linking key members of the Mega Group, politicians, and officials in both the
U.S. and Israel, and an organized-crime network with deep business and intelligence ties in
both nations.
Though this series has so far focused on the ties of this network to main Republican Party
affiliates, the next and final installment will reveal the ties developed between this web and
the Clintons. As will be revealed, despite the Clintons’ willingness to embrace corrupt
dealings during the span of their political careers, their mostly friendly relationship with
this network still saw them use the power of sexual blackmail to obtain certain policy
decisions that were favorable to their personal and financial interests but not to the
Clintons’ political reputation or agendas.
Editor’s note | The original version of this article incorrectly stated that Rafi
Eitan was interested in repurposing the American-made Promise software to restore his standing
in Israel’s intelligence community caused by the fall-out from the Pollard Affair. The
Pollard Affair occurred three years after Eitan had succeeded in repurposing the software and
MintPress has removed that incorrect information from the article and regrets the
error.
This article also originally neglected to mention that Eitan, at the time of his
collaboration with Earl Brian to repurpose the Promis software, was the director of the
now-defunct Israeli military intelligence agency Lekem at the time of those events and that
information has been added to the story.
Feature photo | Graphic by Claudio Cabrera
Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to
several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute
and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and
is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in
Journalism.
Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
"... That was while Robert Mueller ran the Bureau, which means everything about Epstein's blackmail and kompromat operation has been tucked safely away out of sight in FBI files for at least a decade. Much longer, new evidence shows. ..."
"... *CIA Acknowledged in 2003, It Knew that Ghislaine Maxwell's Late Father was a Major Foreign Intelligence Agent Operating Inside the U.S. ..."
"... That Robert Maxwell was a ruthless, corrupt, tax-dodging international businessman who served as an Israeli agent is highly probable. ..."
"... For the first time, Maxwell had failed to get his own way. He started to threaten and bluster. He then demanded that, for past services, he should receive immediately a quick fix of £400million to bale him out of his financial difficulties. ..."
"... Instead of providing the money, a small group of Mossad officers set about planning his murder. They feared that he was going to publicly expose all Mossad had done in the time he worked for them. They knew that he was gradually becoming mentally unstable and paranoid. He was taking a cocktail of drugs - Halcion and Zanax - which had serious side effects. ..."
"... Then Maxwell was contacted. He was told to fly to Gibraltar, go aboard the Lady Ghislaine and sail to the Canary Islands. There at sea he would receive his £400million quick fix in the form of a banker's draft. Maxwell did as he was told. ..."
"... As Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent told us: "On that cold night Mossad's problems with Robert Maxwell were over." ..."
"... The incontrovertible facts about his murder are contained in a previously-unseen autopsy report by Britain's then-leading forensic pathologist Dr Iain West and Israel State Pathologist Dr Yehuda Hiss. Of all the documents in our possession, these reports confirm the truth about Maxwell's death. ..."
"... Boy that Mueller has had a busy career hasn't he? Didn't he start out in Chicago where he gave Whitey Bulgar cover for being a mob boss? Then there's his cover up before and after 9/11. The weapons of mass destruction that he said Saddam had. The anthrax prosecution, Epstein's pedophilia cover up, HSBC and now he is trying to cover Hillary's buttocks. And maybe Obama's? I'm sure I've missed a few things that he did or didn't do. ..."
"... Acosta was told to stand down by someone at the top of the food chain. Mueller. Ugh what a slimy piece of work he is. But not to the Russia Gaters. Oh no. "He is a highly decorated marine who takes no guff from anyone. ..."
"... In that time, he had free access to Margaret Thatcher's Downing Street, to Ronald Reagan's White House, to the Kremlin and to the corridors of power throughout Europe. ..."
"... Inquiring minds want to know did Maxwell have access to Margaret and Ron because they liked him or because he had something on them? ..."
"... Epstein is the destruction of the Deep State. ..."
"... That pedophelia and politics scandal, better known as the Franklin Coverup, made the papers for a few months, too, before it was made to go away. Similarly, a couple of the operators served some time on reduced charges after that one. ..."
"... The two main suspects in the Bush, Sr. White House child ring were Craig Spence and Lawrence E. King Jr. King sang the National anthem at two GOP national conventions. He served time in jail for bank fraud. Spence was a Republican lobbyist before he committed suicide. Several of his partners went to jail for being involved in the adult part of the homosexual prostitution ring. ..."
"... Mueller's scrupulous avoidance of the CIA link in his prosecution of Manuel Noriega and his diversion of the PanAm 103 bombing and framing of two Libyans. Bobby Mueller has been a real go to guy when the security establishment needs a phony investigation. ..."
"... Bobby Mueller has been a real go to guy when the security establishment needs a phony investigation. ..."
"... The anthrax investigation is the most serious of his crimes. Mueller is being sued by his lead investigator in that case. ..."
"... Every now and then, here and there the curtain lifts for a moment and the political elite of a country, the business elite, the spy services, the military, and organized crime are revealed to be all working together, indeed practically joined at the hip ..."
"... partnership started during the early Cold War with US intelligence officers facilitating the drug trade out of Turkey and Burma through Europe. That soon spread to the Americas and globally. Covert operations such as Gladio, Condor, and the Safari Club, and associated banks (Franklin National Bank, BCCI, Riggs Bank, HSBC, etc.) produced massive human rights violations, transnational terrorism and governmental corruption. The CIA's secret wars provided funds and official cover for private-public sector alliance of criminals, bankers and spooks around the world. ..."
"... The CIA, MI6 and Mossad ran overlapping coordinated operations using privateers, paramilitaries and organized crime networks that consumed vast amounts of cash generated by money laundering mechanisms. Enriched by the looting of the former Soviet Union, along with the infusion of Arab oil money (the Saudi Yamamah slush fund), the "Octopus" became the instrument of Oligarchs that have thoroughly corrupted western governments and secret services. ..."
"... The Snowden release included a number of documents that illustrate the on-line entrapment and political disruption activities run by the two main communications intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Epstein recruits young girls, throws parties where he invites potential hedge fund clients, lets nature take its course and films the proceedings, extracts blackmail in the form of investments to his (largely fake) hedge fund, which actually just buys an index fund (no actual fund management required). He takes a percentage from the coerced investments. Nobody talks because they have too much to lose. No suspicious payments to raise eyebrows at the IRS. ..."
"... Epstein brought in the clients. The CIA/MI-6/Mossad provided necessary cover from the FBI and local cops - then, three or four agencies shared the intelligence take, as they had for decades from Robert Maxwell's operations. ..."
"... For Ghislaine, it was simply carrying on the family business for fun and profit. For the spooks, it was business as usual going back to the Green House, the Berlin bordello founded in the the 1870s by Wilhelm Steiber, a Prussian Police section chief, to provide useful intelligence to Bismarck's Military Intelligence, which he reorganized. ..."
"... Epstein is also well acquainted with University President Lawrence H. Summers. The two serve together on the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, two elite international relations organizations. ..."
"... Epstein's relationships within the academy are remarkable since the tycoon, who has amassed his fortune by managing the wealth of billionaires from his private Caribbean island, does not hold a bachelor's degree. ..."
"... There's a rocky road ahead for Larry Summers. Summers introduces Epstein into the Harvard fold, but becomes reckless with his newly-refined Neoliberalism and his opinions concerning "lady scholars." ..."
That was while Robert Mueller ran the Bureau, which means everything about Epstein's blackmail and kompromat operation
has been tucked safely away out of sight in FBI files for at least a decade. Much longer, new evidence shows.
The real question is, why did the FBI wait for more than a decade to bust Epstein and Maxwell?
Epstein and Maxwell came to the attention of the FBI in 1996, when, curiously, the Bureau never acted on an accusation that
they had together sexually abused a 15 year old girl in a bedroom inside Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Documents in a recent
law suit filed by an alleged victim, Maria Farmer, show that the FBI had been aware of Epstein and Maxwell's child abuse activities
in New York for at least a dozen years before Epstein was finally charged in 2008 with much-reduced Florida state offenses.
https://www.yourtango.com/2019323698/who-maria-farmer-latest-woman-accus...
Farmer claims she reported her sexual assault to New York police and the FBI in 1996. "To my knowledge, I was the first
person to report Maxwell and Epstein to the FBI," she wrote in her affidavit."
*CIA Acknowledged in 2003, It Knew that Ghislaine Maxwell's Late Father was a Major Foreign Intelligence Agent Operating
Inside the U.S.
Previously, Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine's father, had for many years been known to have been involved in high-level espionage
in the United States, as detailed in a 2003 publication of the CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence, The Intelligence Officer's
Bookshelf . Therein, the CIA reviewer of a biography by British author Gordon Thomas acknowledged about Maxwell:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-pub...
That Robert Maxwell was a ruthless, corrupt, tax-dodging international businessman who served as an Israeli agent is
highly probable.
For the deeper background to the Epstein-Maxwell multinational blackmail, coverup and kompromat operation, we have to
look at the events that led up to the 1991 death of Robert Maxwell. A summary of the Maxwell bio by its authors recounts:
British Publisher Robert Maxwell
Was Mossad Spy
By Gordon Thomas And Martin Dillon
The Mirror - UK
12-6-2002
[ . . .]
Eleven years after former Daily Mirror owner Robert Maxwell plunged from his luxury yacht to a watery grave, his death still
arouses intense interest.
Many different theories have circulated about what really happened on board the Lady Ghislaine that night in May 1991.
[ . . . ]
The Jewish millionaire and former Labour MP [born Ludvik Hoch
in Czechoslovakia] died the way he had lived - threatening.
He had threatened his wife. Threatened his children. Threatened the staff of this newspaper.
But finally he issued one threat too many - he threatened Mossad.
He told them that unless they gave him £400million to save his crumbling empire, he would expose all he had done for them.
In that time, he had free access to Margaret Thatcher's Downing Street, to Ronald Reagan's White House, to the Kremlin and
to the corridors of power throughout Europe.
On top of that he had built himself a position of power within the crime families of eastern Europe, teaching them how to
funnel their vast wealth from drugs, arms smuggling and prostitution to banks in safe havens around the globe.
Maxwell passed on all the secrets he learned to Mossad in Tel Aviv. In turn, they tolerated his excesses, vanities and insatiable
appetite for a luxurious lifestyle and women.
He told his controllers who they should target and how they should do it. He appointed himself as Israel's unofficial ambassador
to the Soviet Bloc. Mossad saw the advantage in that.
[ . . . ]
The more successful Maxwell became the more risks he took and the more dangerous he was to Mossad. At the same time, the
very public side of Maxwell, who then owned 400 companies, began to unwind.
He spent lavishly and lost money on deals. The more he lost, the more he tried to claw money from the banks. Then he saw
a way out of his problems.
He was approached by Vladimir Kryuchkov, head of the KGB. Spymaster and tycoon met in the utmost secrecy in the Kremlin.
Kryuchkov had an extraordinary proposal. He wanted Maxwell to help orchestrate the overthrow of Mikhail Gorbachev, the reformist
Soviet leader. That would bring to an end a fledgling democracy and a return to the Cold War days.
In return, Maxwell's massive debts would be wiped out by a grateful Kryuchkov, who planned to replace Gorbachev. The KGB
chief wanted Maxwell to use the Lady Ghislaine, named after Maxwell's daughter, as a meeting place between the Russian plotters,
Mossad chiefs and Israel's top politicians.
The plan was for the Israelis to go to Washington and say that democracy could not work in Russia and that it was better
to allow the country to return to a modified form of communism, which America could help to control. In return, Kryuchkov would
guarantee to free hundreds of thousands of Jews and dissidents in the Soviet republics.
Kryuchkov told Maxwell that he would be seen as a saviour of all those Jews. It was a proposal he could not refuse. But
when he put it to his Mossad controllers they were horrified. They said Israel would have no part in such a madcap plan.
For the first time, Maxwell had failed to get his own way. He started to threaten and bluster. He then demanded that,
for past services, he should receive immediately a quick fix of £400million to bale him out of his financial difficulties.
Instead of providing the money, a small group of Mossad officers set about planning his murder. They feared that he
was going to publicly expose all Mossad had done in the time he worked for them. They knew that he was gradually becoming mentally
unstable and paranoid. He was taking a cocktail of drugs - Halcion and Zanax - which had serious side effects.
The group of Mossad plotters sensed, like Solomon, he could bring their temple tumbling down and cause incalculable harm
to Israel. The plan to kill him was prepared in the utmost secrecy. A four-man squad was briefed.
Then Maxwell was contacted. He was told to fly to Gibraltar, go aboard the Lady Ghislaine and sail to the Canary Islands.
There at sea he would receive his £400million quick fix in the form of a banker's draft. Maxwell did as he was told.
On the night of November 4, 1991, the Lady Ghislaine, one of the world's biggest yachts, was at sea.
[ . . . ]
As Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent told us: "On that cold night Mossad's problems with Robert Maxwell were over."
The incontrovertible facts about his murder are contained in a previously-unseen autopsy report by Britain's then-leading
forensic pathologist Dr Iain West and Israel State Pathologist Dr Yehuda Hiss. Of all the documents in our possession, these
reports confirm the truth about Maxwell's death.
Gordon Thomas & Martin Dillon are authors of The Assassination of Robert Maxwell: Israel's Super Spy, published by Robson
Books.
The obvious question, why did the U.S. government let these intelligence crimes continue for decades, isn't being asked. The
answer is almost self-evident. Information and leverage obtained by Maxwell-Epstein and Co. was far too valuable to its several
operators to let it all end too soon.
leap out at me as suggesting how Epstein connects to much bigger subjects. First is the assertion that Maxwell was
... teaching them how to funnel their vast wealth from drugs, arms smuggling and prostitution to banks in safe havens around
the globe.
This area of trafficking and money laundering directly connects to Mueller and his essential exoneration of
HSBC .
The other quotation that suggests the importance of money laundering is here:
The plan was for the Israelis to go to Washington and say that democracy could not work in Russia and that it was better
to allow the country to return to a modified form of communism, which America could help to control.
The life's work of
Antony Sutton at Stanford's Hoover Institution shows that American industry was ALWAYS controlling communism as well as Soviet
industrial development, and that a trend toward social democracy, represented by Gorbachev, would have put an end to that control.
@Linda Wood his money laundering and blackmailing activities. While the review confirms that Robert Maxwell was for decades
a major Mossad agent actively setting up operations and cover in the United States and the UK, I can only surmise that the spreading
political influence of Eastern European organized crime networks and child honey traps are things that the Agency didn't want
to discuss publicly in 2003.
As for Mueller, let's not forget that he was FBI Director and before that the head of the Criminal Division at Main Justice
at the time that global "black finance" grew along with the catastrophic spread of multinational crime and terrorism. BCCI, Iran-Contra,
9/11, and the rise of transnational Oligarchs happened on his watch. As the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the United States
at the time, it is hard to imagine anyone more responsibility for the ultimate consequences than Robert Mueller. There is perhaps
someone who bears ultimate responsibility, the President who appointed Mueller: George Herbert Walker Bush and his lesser son,
Shrub, who promoted him.
... wouldn't you assume that this entire affair is an ongoing Mossad operation, which may or may not have concluded? The US
IC is just another operative inside the envelope, but Mossad owns the assets and the intellectual property. I think we could assume
that some of this is automated and Mossad has ongoing leverage still in play.
The obvious question, why did the U.S. government let these intelligence crimes continue for decades, isn't being asked.
The answer is almost self-evident. Information and leverage obtained by Maxwell-Epstein and Co. was far too valuable to its
several operators to let it all end too soon.
.
Mossad's legendary blackmail traps ensnared even high-level deep state authorities and made them pliable. The recent history
of United States foreign policy is an enigma that can only be solved when that assumption is inserted. Once the assumption is
in place, it opens like a Pandora's box. Don't you find that to be the case?
In a recent investigation I presented the case that British banking and financial giant HSBC conspired with banking institutions
with documented links to terrorist financing, including those responsible for helping bankroll the 9/11 attacks.
SUNDAY, JULY 29, 2012
Black Dossier: HSBC & Terrorist Finance
Moral equivalencies abound. After all, when American secret state agencies manage drug flows or direct terrorist proxies
to attack official enemies it's not quite the same as battling terror or crime.
Pounding home that point, a new report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations accused HSBC of exposing "the
U.S. financial system to a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing risks due to poor anti-money
laundering (AML) controls."
That 335-page report, "U.S. Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, and Terrorist Financing: HSBC Case History," (large
pdf file available
here ) was issued after a year-long Senate investigation zeroed-in on the bank's U.S. affiliate, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., better
known as HBUS.
Drilling down, we learned that amongst the "services" offered by HSBC subsidiaries and correspondent banks were sweet deals
with financial entities with terrorist ties; the transportation of billions of dollars in cash by plane and armored car through
their London Banknotes division; the clearing of sequentially-numbered travelers checks through dodgy Cayman Islands accounts
for Mexican drug lords and Russian mafiosi.
From richly-appointed suites at Canary Wharf, London, the bank's "smartest guys in the room" handed some of the most violent
gangsters on earth the financial wherewithal to organize their respective industries: global crime.
A case in point. In 2008 alone the Senate revealed that the bank's Cayman Islands branch handled some 50,000 client accounts
(all without benefit of offices or staff on Grand Cayman, mind you), yet still managed to ship some $7 billion (£10.9bn) in
cash from Mexico into the U.S. Now that's creative accounting!...
@Linda Wood HSBC, huh--there must be some clever name for it, which deserves no research.
what an eloquent article you presented. Brief but right on target. It isn't just sex, drugs and rock and roll. Now it is drugs
- money -sexual perversion--and perhaps worse? Rumors are flying about what video on the Weiner laptop showed. It is strictly
heresay, but a core of folks seem to believe the suspicions are possible.
snoopydawg on Thu, 07/11/2019 - 8:48pm
Boy that Mueller has had a busy career
hasn't he? Didn't he start out in Chicago where he gave Whitey Bulgar cover for being a mob boss? Then there's his
cover up before and after 9/11. The weapons of mass destruction that he said Saddam had. The anthrax prosecution, Epstein's pedophilia
cover up, HSBC and now he is trying to cover Hillary's buttocks. And maybe Obama's? I'm sure I've missed a few things that he
did or didn't do.
Acosta is saying that if he hadn't made the plea deal then Epstein would never have served any time in
prison. Well he actually only slept there since he got to leave every day for work and then there's the massages he got after
his busy day at work. But there were more than 80 pages that the Feds wrote on his escapades so I think that story he told congress
is true. Acosta was told to stand down by someone at the top of the food chain. Mueller. Ugh what a slimy piece of work he
is. But not to the Russia Gaters. Oh no. "He is a highly decorated marine who takes no guff from anyone.
In that time, he had free access to Margaret Thatcher's Downing Street, to Ronald Reagan's White House, to the Kremlin
and to the corridors of power throughout Europe.
Inquiring minds want to know did Maxwell have access to Margaret and Ron because they liked him or because he had something
on them?
Great information! The more I learn the more I need a shower.
is how I've been feeling all week from reading about this, just more and more demoralized when I think about the depravation
of our so-called "leadership." What is it that we're supposed to think of as the new normal after this behavior?
That pedophelia and politics scandal, better known as the Franklin Coverup, made the papers for a few months, too, before
it was made to go away. Similarly, a couple of the operators served some time on reduced charges after that one.
The two main suspects in the Bush, Sr. White House child ring were Craig Spence and Lawrence E. King Jr. King sang the
National anthem at two GOP national conventions. He served time in jail for bank fraud. Spence was a Republican lobbyist before
he committed suicide. Several of his partners went to jail for being involved in the adult part of the homosexual prostitution
ring.
Mueller's scrupulous avoidance of the CIA link in his prosecution of Manuel Noriega and his diversion of the PanAm 103
bombing and framing of two Libyans. Bobby Mueller has been a real go to guy when the security establishment needs a phony investigation.
Bobby Mueller has been a real go to guy when the security establishment needs a phony investigation.
The anthrax investigation is the most serious of his crimes. Mueller is being
sued by his lead investigator in that case.
Because researchers in our biological weapons labs went public with what they were doing, and where such research was being
done in the U.S., we learned the CIA was one of several outfits doing biological weapons research.
But Mueller exonerated all of them, including the CIA, with no explanation and only focused on a lone vaccine researcher at
the Army lab when journalists began to ask why no one had been indicted after seven years of investigation, at which point the
FBI attempted to harass the suspect into committing suicide.
Every now and then, here and there the curtain lifts for a moment and the political elite of a country, the business elite,
the spy services, the military, and organized crime are revealed to be all working together, indeed practically joined at the
hip.
partnership started during the early Cold War with US intelligence officers facilitating the drug trade out of Turkey and
Burma through Europe. That soon spread to the Americas and globally. Covert operations such as Gladio, Condor, and the Safari
Club, and associated banks (Franklin National Bank, BCCI, Riggs Bank, HSBC, etc.) produced massive human rights violations, transnational
terrorism and governmental corruption. The CIA's secret wars provided funds and official cover for private-public sector alliance
of criminals, bankers and spooks around the world.
This "dark alliance" assumed a political and economic life of its own beyond its original intent to counter communist movements.
By the Vietnam War, Agency operators were running most of the heroin trade in the world through proprietary airlines, banks and
logistics companies. In the mid-1970s, CIA Director Bush expanded privatization with Saudi funding in his Safari Club deal that
eventually morphed into Al Qaeda and ISIS.
The CIA, MI6 and Mossad ran overlapping coordinated operations using privateers, paramilitaries and organized crime networks
that consumed vast amounts of cash generated by money laundering mechanisms. Enriched by the looting of the former Soviet Union,
along with the infusion of Arab oil money (the Saudi Yamamah slush fund), the "Octopus" became the instrument of Oligarchs
that have thoroughly corrupted western governments and secret services.
Multinational honey trap operations such as Maxwell-Epstein & Co. are an inevitable and continuing part of this privatization
and criminalization of intelligence that stretches back to the days of Tom Braden and Cord Meyer handing out stacks of greenbacks
to Mafiosi on the Corsican Docks.
The Snowden release included a number of documents that illustrate the on-line entrapment and political disruption activities
run by the two main communications intelligence agencies.
"Honey-trap; a great option. Very successful, when it works" (GCHQ, UK training program slide)
Without quoting the whole thing (which is worth a read):
Epstein recruits young girls, throws parties where he invites potential hedge fund clients, lets nature take its course
and films the proceedings, extracts blackmail in the form of investments to his (largely fake) hedge fund, which actually just
buys an index fund (no actual fund management required). He takes a percentage from the coerced investments. Nobody talks because
they have too much to lose. No suspicious payments to raise eyebrows at the IRS.
There's no need to invoke the Mafia/Russia/Mossad/CIA/etc, that's just needlessly overfitting.
Except such an operation would be quite attractive to intelligence services. Maybe they were in on the ground floor, maybe
they made Epstein an offer he couldn't refuse once they heard about it.
Epstein brought in the clients. The CIA/MI-6/Mossad provided necessary cover from the FBI and local cops - then,
three or four agencies shared the intelligence take, as they had for decades from Robert Maxwell's operations.
For Ghislaine, it was simply carrying on the family business for fun and profit. For the spooks, it was business as usual
going back to the Green House, the Berlin bordello founded in the the 1870s by Wilhelm Steiber, a Prussian Police section chief,
to provide useful intelligence to Bismarck's Military Intelligence, which he reorganized.
Steiber is considered the father of modern espionage. His methods were vastly influential, and he attracted students from London,
St. Petersburg to Tokyo. Each put their own national spin on the science of sexual blackmail. As for the Japanese, they are among
the most interesting and innovative in their use of a parallel network of privatized intelligence services incorporating underworld
Yakuzi groups alongside conventional military intelligence units. Using compromise, they gained and maintained control over Imperial
Japan and its Colonies: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/03/15/eastern-peril/
To realize these divinely inspired ambitions, Japan needed a modern espionage system. Adopting the German model, Japanese
officials were sent to study under Wilhelm Stieber in the mid-1870s. Over the next decade Japan built up separate army and
naval intelligence services, each with an accompanying branch of secret military police (Kempeitai for the army and Tokeitai
for the navy). These latter organizations also provided an excellent counter-espionage service. However, where the Japanese
were unique was in the use of spies belonging to unofficial secret societies working alongside or independently of the official
intelligence agencies. These shadowy institutions were ultra-nationalist by nature, drawing their membership from a cross-section
of Japanese society, including the military, politics, industry and Yakuza underworld. Under ruthless leadership, their henchmen
would spy on, subvert and corrupt Japan's Far East neighbours.
For more on Steiber and his superior, von Hinckeldey, methods of international counter-insurgency, espionage, and political
policing included deception and a forerunner of today's internet surveillance:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2006/11/29/275653/-
While armies are essential to the maintenance of autocracy, the preservation of dynastic rule and the prevention of democracy
requires an effective secret police. The suppression of its middle-class constitutionalists [during the 1840s] was followed
by the expansion of the Prussian political police under Karl Ludwig Friedrich von Hinckeldey.
Appointed police president of Berlin in late 1848, Hinckeldey was an innovator of many of the features of modern systematic
political policing. Among the tactics that he introduced with his new police system in Berlin was the "Litfass columns". Named
for Ernst Litfass, Frederick William's court printer, he had dozens of these large poles erected in strategic spots around
Berlin. The public posting of political notices was then banned. By application to a state office for a waiver, however, the
columns could be used to display messages. The police dutifully recorded the names of all who had applied. A. Richie, Faust's
Metropolis: A History of Berlin, New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1998 at p.134.
LEGACY OF THE LITFASS COLUMNS: A similar ploy was later adopted by the People's Republic of China. In the mid-1980s, the
Communist authorities at first appear to tolerate the operation of a so-called Democracy Wall, where "dissidents" in Beijing
could post political writings, initially, without being arrested. Similar walls then sprung up under the noses of the authorities
in other Chinese cities. For this apparent opening to democracy, the Deng regime much applauded, particularly by some in the
Reagan-Bush Administration, eager to legitimize the regime and its growing commercial ties with U.S. corporations. Eventually,
many of those who had availed themselves of the wall to post political messages were, of course, arrested in the roundup of
hundreds of thousands of democracy supporters that followed the Tienamen Square massacre. The impression of anonymity and "freedom"
conveyed by the Internet, of course, presents a similar opportunity for police to cast a wide net for identifying persons and
organizations who may not hold favor for the regime in power, or may not in the future.
Hinckeldey also founded the Police Union, the first recorded international network of counterrevolutionary police spies
in modern times. Primarily made up of police officers from Prussia and the German states, the Union operated throughout Europe,
Britain and in the United States. The Union was run by his deputy, the notorious police provocateur, Wilhelm Steiber, who would
later reorganize the Okhrana along similar lines. Internationally active from 1851-1866, the Police Union, according to Mathieu
Deflem, was "one of the first formal initiatives in industrial society to establish an organized police system across national
borders."13
I disagree with the Alternet view on this. See, this is the norm. A purely private sexual blackmail ring of any scale would
be the historical exception. It certainly wouldn't survive very long.
...authorities at first appear to tolerate the operation of a so-called Democracy Wall, where "dissidents" in Beijing could
post political writings.... Similar walls then sprung up under the noses of the authorities in other Chinese cities. Eventually,
many of those who had availed themselves of the wall to post political messages were, of course, arrested in the roundup of
hundreds of thousands of democracy supporters....
The impression of anonymity and "freedom" conveyed by the Internet, of course, presents a similar opportunity for police
to cast a wide net for identifying persons and organizations who may not hold favor for the regime in power, or may not in
the future.
But why should one avoid the thought? If the situation looks like the people are going to lose the war for their minds, and
are unwilling to back a publisher like Assange who has given his all to try to empower them, why should anyone put themselves
at risk by expressing their opinions? It's a honeypot of our own making, just as Facebook is where people go to write their own
dossiers for the Authorities.
@Pluto's Republic an enemy of the status quo, you raise the calculated costs of the eventual crackdown, pushing back the
day of reckoning. Keep it up! Visible rebellion is the only defense of the people.
...from which to leverage access to the elite, Harvard University would be a top choice.
Jeffery Epstein actually entered the social salons of the elite through many doors. He was, of course, a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations. One would have to be to rub shoulders with the political elite. From there he matriculated to the Trilateral
Commission becoming friendly with Harvard President, Larry Summers. **
Becoming a surprise mystery philanthropist at Harvard, with Summers help, was a booster rocket for Epstein. In the Havard Crimson , in
June 2003, Epstein's involvement with Harvard was celebrated.
People in the News: Jeffrey E. Epstein
Elusive financier Jeffrey E. Epstein donated $30 million this year to Harvard for the founding of a mathematical biology
and evolutionary dynamics program.
While the mathematics teacher turned magnate remained unknown to most people until he flew President Clinton, Kevin
Spacey and Chris Tucker to Africa to explore the problems of AIDS and economic development facing the region, Epstein
has been a familiar face to many at Harvard for years.
Networking with the University's leading intellectuals, Epstein has spurred research through both discussions with and dollars
contributed to various faculty members.
Lindsley Professor of Psychology Stephen M. Kosslyn, former Dean of the Faculty Henry A. Rosovsky and Frankfurter Professor
of Law Alan M. Dershowitz are among Epstein's bevy of eminent friends that includes princes, presidents and Nobel
Prize winners.
Epstein is also well acquainted with University President Lawrence H. Summers. The two serve together on the Trilateral
Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, two elite international relations organizations.
Epstein's collection of high-profile friends also includes newly-recruited professor Martin A. Nowak, who will run Harvard's
mathematical biology and evolutionary dynamics program.
Like Kosslyn, Rosovsky and Dershowitz, Nowak praises Epstein's numerous relationships within the scientific community.
"I am amazed by the connections he has in the scientific world," Nowak says. "He knows an amazing number of scientists.
He knows everyone you can imagine."
Epstein's relationships within the academy are remarkable since the tycoon, who has amassed his fortune by managing
the wealth of billionaires from his private Caribbean island, does not hold a bachelor's degree.
Yet, friends and beneficiaries say they do not see Epstein merely as a man with deep pockets, but as an intellectual equal.
Dershowitz says Epstein is "brilliant" and Kosslyn calls Epstein "one of the brightest people I've ever known."
Epstein's beneficiaries say they are particularly appreciative of the no-strings-attached approach Epstein takes with his
donations.
"He is one of the most pleasant philanthropists," Nowak says. "Unlike many people who support science, he supports science
without any conditions. There are not any disadvantages to associating with him."
Friends and associates say Harvard stands to benefit from its evolving relationship with Epstein.
"I hope that he will, over time, become one of the leading supporters of science at Harvard," Rosovsky writes in an e-mail.
__________________________________________
** A footnote on Larry Summers seems important here:
Harvard-trained economists have been running the US economy for a very long time, and continue to do so. Summers began his ascent
as a professor of economics at Harvard University, leaving shortly before Bill Clinton won the Presidency. He was clearly the
Neoliberal seed planted for the New American Century.
In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury
under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political
mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury.
While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic
crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the Harvard
Institute for International Development and American-advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and
in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
At This Point the Ball is Passed to the Bush Team Republicans, while the Democrats Sit Back and Wait for 2008.
There's now a Treasury surplus to transfer to the wealthy, and the necessary deregulation for Wall Street empowerment is in
place. The Soviet era had ended and Russia is ended forever. The world is finally primed to be seized by the One Exceptional Power.
It's 2001, and we are standing on the threshold of the New American Century . Time to throw a flash-bang of chaos onto the world
stage and trigger the booming War Economy that will carry us directly to global control.
There's a rocky road ahead for Larry Summers. Summers introduces Epstein into the Harvard fold, but becomes reckless with
his newly-refined Neoliberalism and his opinions concerning "lady scholars."
Following the end of Clinton's term, Summers served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006.
Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large part
from Summers's conflict with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer,
and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the under-representation of women in science and engineering could be due to a
"different availability of aptitude at the high end", and less to patterns of discrimination and socialization. Remarking upon
political correctness in institutions of higher education, Summers said in 2016:
Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large
part from Summers's conflict with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with
Andrei Shleifer, and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the under-representation of women in science and engineering
There is a great deal of absurd political correctness. Now, I'm somebody who believes very strongly in diversity, who
resists racism in all of its many incarnations, who thinks that there is a great deal that's unjust in American society
that needs to be combated, but it seems to be that there is a kind of creeping totalitarianism in terms of what kind of
ideas are acceptable and are debatable on college campuses.
After his departure from Harvard, Summers cooled his jets on Wall Street, positioning himself to be called back into the game
when it was Team Democrat's turn in 2008.
Summers worked as a managing partner at the hedge fund D. E. Shaw & Co., and as a freelance speaker at other financial institutions,
including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. Summers rejoined public service during
the Obama administration, serving as the Director of the White House United States National Economic Council for President
Barack Obama from January 2009 until November 2010, where he emerged as a key economic decision-maker in the Obama administration's
response to the Great Recession.
Jeffery Epstein continued to weave himself into the fabric of government like a good psychopath would. He was by no means the
only one.
Looks like the world order established after WWIII crumbed with the USSR and now it is again the law if jungles with the US as the
biggest predator.
Notable quotes:
"... The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet. ..."
"... Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure, dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence, not democracy ..."
"... A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism" (meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest. ..."
"... For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.) to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness. ..."
"... Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II. ..."
"... Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards. ..."
"... Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations' International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity." ..."
"... This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago, and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer. ..."
"... England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank." ..."
"... But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium. ..."
"... On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas, this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions attack on Europe ..."
"... The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above. In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945. ..."
"... By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands. ..."
"... It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either. ..."
"... But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3 billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid. ..."
"... It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. ..."
"... Anticipating just such a double-cross, President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe. ..."
"... It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence. ..."
"... Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs, but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and settle for being a dominant minority. ..."
"... Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change. ..."
"... Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms". Interesting times. ..."
"... Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. ..."
"... To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles. ..."
"... Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet again. Nothing to see here, actually. ..."
"... So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change. ..."
"... Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. ..."
"... I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. ..."
"... If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be" to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing. ..."
"... In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3. ..."
"... Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble." ..."
"... He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas. ..."
"... The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run. ..."
"... Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics" on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners. ..."
"... Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence. There will be fierce competition to fill the gap. ..."
"... On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top. I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect. ..."
"... Former US ambassador, Chas Freeman, gets to the nub of the problem. "The US preference for governance by elected and appointed officials, uncontaminated by experience in statecraft and diplomacy, or knowledge of geography, history and foreign affairs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_882041135&feature=iv&src_vid=Ge1ozuXN7iI&v=gkf2MQdqz-o ..."
"... Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT. ..."
"... The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy. ..."
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected, thanks to the very same Neocons
who gave the world the Iraq, Syria and the dirty wars in Latin America. Just as the Vietnam War drove the United States off gold
by 1971, its sponsorship and funding of violent regime change wars against Venezuela and Syria – and threatening other countries
with sanctions if they do not join this crusade – is now driving European and other nations to create their alternative financial
institutions.
This break has been building for quite some time, and was bound to occur. But who would have thought that Donald Trump would become
the catalytic agent? No left-wing party, no socialist, anarchist or foreign nationalist leader anywhere in the world could have achieved
what he is doing to break up the American Empire. The Deep State is reacting with shock at how this right-wing real estate grifter
has been able to drive other countries to defend themselves by dismantling the U.S.-centered world order. To rub it in, he is using
Bush and Reagan-era Neocon arsonists, John Bolton and now Elliott Abrams, to fan the flames in Venezuela. It is almost like a black
political comedy. The world of international diplomacy is being turned inside-out. A world where there is no longer even a pretense
that we might adhere to international norms, let alone laws or treaties.
The Neocons who Trump has appointed are accomplishing what seemed unthinkable not long ago: Driving China and Russia together
– the great nightmare of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They also are driving Germany and other European countries into
the Eurasian orbit, the "Heartland" nightmare of Halford Mackinder a century ago.
The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution
of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported
even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States
is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet.
Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign
policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure,
dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank
to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence,
not democracy.
In the Devil's Dictionary that U.S. diplomats are taught to use as their "Elements of Style" guidelines for Doublethink, a "democratic"
country is one that follows U.S. leadership and opens its economy to U.S. investment, and IMF- and World Bank-sponsored privatization.
The Ukraine is deemed democratic, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries that act as U.S. financial and military protectorates
and are willing to treat America's enemies are theirs too.
A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public
relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism"
(meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest.
This trajectory could be seen 50 years ago (I described it in Super Imperialism [1972] and Global Fracture [1978].) It had to
happen. But nobody thought that the end would come in quite the way that is happening. History has turned into comedy, or at least
irony as its dialectical path unfolds.
For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that
opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties
that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.)
to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners
and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness.
The reality is that right-wing parties want to get elected, and a populist nationalism is today's road to election victory in
Europe and other countries just as it was for Donald Trump in 2016.
Trump's agenda may really be to break up the American Empire, using the old Uncle Sucker isolationist rhetoric of half a century
ago. He certainly is going for the Empire's most vital organs. But it he a witting anti-American agent? He might as well be – but
it would be a false mental leap to use "quo bono" to assume that he is a witting agent.
After all, if no U.S. contractor, supplier, labor union or bank will deal with him, would Vladimir Putin, China or Iran be any
more naïve? Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible
to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal
to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II.
Dismantling International Law and Its Courts
Any international system of control requires the rule of law. It may be a morally lawless exercise of ruthless power imposing
predatory exploitation, but it is still The Law. And it needs courts to apply it (backed by police power to enforce it and punish
violators).
Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country
have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy
years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which
let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards.
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their equity
share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy. Without such power, the United States would not join
any international organization. Yet at the same time, it depicted its nationalism as protecting globalization and internationalism.
It was all a euphemism for what really was unilateral U.S. decision-making.
Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international
court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations'
International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture
policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable
basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity."
[1]
Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton erupted in fury, warning in September that: "The United States will use any
means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," adding that
the UN International Court must not be so bold as to investigate "Israel or other U.S. allies."
That prompted a senior judge, Christoph Flügge from Germany, to resign in protest. Indeed, Bolton told the court to keep out of
any affairs involving the United States, promising to ban the Court's "judges and prosecutors from entering the United States." As
Bolton spelled out the U.S. threat: "We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and we will prosecute them in the
U.S. criminal system. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We
will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us."
What this meant, the German judge spelled out was that: "If these judges ever interfere in the domestic concerns of the U.S. or
investigate an American citizen, [Bolton] said the American government would do all it could to ensure that these judges would no
longer be allowed to travel to the United States – and that they would perhaps even be criminally prosecuted."
The original inspiration of the Court – to use the Nuremburg laws that were applied against German Nazis to bring similar prosecution
against any country or officials found guilty of committing war crimes – had already fallen into disuse with the failure to indict
the authors of the Chilean coup, Iran-Contra or the U.S. invasion of Iraq for war crimes.
Dismantling Dollar Hegemony from the IMF to SWIFT
Of all areas of global power politics today, international finance and foreign investment have become the key flashpoint. International
monetary reserves were supposed to be the most sacrosanct, and international debt enforcement closely associated.
Central banks have long held their gold and other monetary reserves in the United States and London. Back in 1945 this seemed
reasonable, because the New York Federal Reserve Bank (in whose basement foreign central bank gold was kept) was militarily safe,
and because the London Gold Pool was the vehicle by which the U.S. Treasury kept the dollar "as good as gold" at $35 an ounce. Foreign
reserves over and above gold were kept in the form of U.S. Treasury securities, to be bought and sold on the New York and London
foreign-exchange markets to stabilize exchange rates. Most foreign loans to governments were denominated in U.S. dollars, so Wall
Street banks were normally name as paying agents.
That was the case with Iran under the Shah, whom the United States had installed after sponsoring the 1953 coup against Mohammed
Mosaddegh when he sought to nationalize Anglo-Iranian Oil (now British Petroleum) or at least tax it. After the Shah was overthrown,
the Khomeini regime asked its paying agent, the Chase Manhattan bank, to use its deposits to pay its bondholders. At the direction
of the U.S. Government Chase refused to do so. U.S. courts then declared Iran to be in default, and froze all its assets in the United
States and anywhere else they were able.
This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago,
and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might
be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally
got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult
that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer.
But then came Venezuela. Desperate to spend its gold reserves to provide imports for its economy devastated by U.S. sanctions
– a crisis that U.S. diplomats blame on "socialism," not on U.S. political attempts to "make the economy scream" (as Nixon officials
said of Chile under Salvador Allende) – Venezuela directed the Bank of England to transfer some of its $11 billion in gold held in
its vaults and those of other central banks in December 2018. This was just like a bank depositor would expect a bank to pay a check
that the depositor had written.
England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo.
As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster
his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign
reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank."
Turkey seemed to be a likely destination, prompting Bolton and Pompeo to warn it to desist from helping Venezuela, threatening
sanctions against it or any other country helping Venezuela cope with its economic crisis. As for the Bank of England and other European
countries, the Bloomberg report concluded: "Central bank officials in Caracas have been ordered to no longer try contacting the Bank
of England. These central bankers have been told that Bank of England staffers will not respond to them."
This led to rumors that Venezuela was selling 20 tons of gold via a Russian Boeing 777 – some $840 million. The money probably
would have ended up paying Russian and Chinese bondholders as well as buying food to relieve the local famine.
[4] Russia denied this report, but Reuters has confirmed is that Venezuela has sold 3 tons of a planned 29 tones of gold to the
United Arab Emirates, with another 15 tones are to be shipped on Friday, February 1.
[5] The U.S. Senate's Batista-Cuban hardliner Rubio accused this of being "theft," as if feeding the people to alleviate the
U.S.-sponsored crisis was a crime against U.S. diplomatic leverage.
If there is any country that U.S. diplomats hate more than a recalcitrant Latin American country, it is Iran. President Trump's
breaking of the 2015 nuclear agreements negotiated by European and Obama Administration diplomats has escalated to the point of threatening
Germany and other European countries with punitive sanctions if they do not also break the agreements they have signed. Coming on
top of U.S. opposition to German and other European importing of Russian gas, the U.S. threat finally prompted Europe to find a way
to defend itself.
Imperial threats are no longer military. No country (including Russia or China) can mount a military invasion of another major
country. Since the Vietnam Era, the only kind of war a democratically elected country can wage is atomic, or at least heavy bombing
such as the United States has inflicted on Iraq, Libya and Syria. But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the
connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium.
Russia and China have already moved to create a shadow bank-transfer system in case the United States unplugs them from SWIFT.
But now, European countries have come to realize that threats by Bolton and Pompeo may lead to heavy fines and asset grabs if they
seek to continue trading with Iran as called for in the treaties they have negotiated.
On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran
and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument
in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored
Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas,
this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions
attack on Europe.
I have just returned from Germany and seen a remarkable split between that nation's industrialists and their political leadership.
For years, major companies have seen Russia as a natural market, a complementary economy needing to modernize its manufacturing and
able to supply Europe with natural gas and other raw materials. America's New Cold War stance is trying to block this commercial
complementarity. Warning Europe against "dependence" on low-price Russian gas, it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from the United
States (via port facilities that do not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required). President Trump also is insisting that NATO
members spend a full 2 percent of their GDP on arms – preferably bought from the United States, not from German or French merchants
of death.
The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above.
In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to
bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945.
The World Bank, for instance, traditionally has been headed by a U.S. Secretary of Defense. Its steady policy since its inception
is to provide loans for countries to devote their land to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves. That is
why its loans are only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive. By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food
blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands.
It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to
become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically
to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports
from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees
across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either.
Likewise, the IMF has been forced to admit that its basic guidelines were fictitious from the beginning. A central core has been
to enforce payment of official inter-government debt by withholding IMF credit from countries under default. This rule was instituted
at a time when most official inter-government debt was owed to the United States. But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3
billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country
deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption
to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid.
It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. Europe has taken
notice that its own international monetary trade and financial linkages are in danger of attracting U.S. anger. This became clear
last autumn at the funeral for George H. W. Bush, when the EU's diplomat found himself downgraded to the end of the list to be called
to his seat. He was told that the U.S. no longer considers the EU an entity in good standing. In December, "Mike Pompeo gave a speech
on Europe in Brussels -- his first, and eagerly awaited -- in which he extolled the virtues of nationalism, criticised multilateralism
and the EU, and said that "international bodies" which constrain national sovereignty "must be reformed or eliminated."
[5]
Most of the above events have made the news in just one day, January 31, 2019. The conjunction of U.S. moves on so many fronts,
against Venezuela, Iran and Europe (not to mention China and the trade threats and moves against Huawei also erupting today) looks
like this will be a year of global fracture.
It is not all President Trump's doing, of course. We see the Democratic Party showing the same colors. Instead of applauding democracy
when foreign countries do not elect a leader approved by U.S. diplomats (whether it is Allende or Maduro), they've let the mask fall
and shown themselves to be the leading New Cold War imperialists. It's now out in the open. They would make Venezuela the new Pinochet-era
Chile. Trump is not alone in supporting Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi terrorists acting, as Lyndon Johnson put it, "Bastards, but they're
our bastards."
Where is the left in all this? That is the question with which I opened this article. How remarkable it is that it is only right-wing
parties, Alternative for Deutschland (AFD), or Marine le Pen's French nationalists and those of other countries that are opposing
NATO militarization and seeking to revive trade and economic links with the rest of Eurasia.
The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed observer like
me. It took a colossal level of arrogance, short-sightedness and lawlessness to hasten its decline -- something that only crazed
Neocons like John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Mike Pompeo could deliver for Donald Trump.
[2] Patricia Laya, Ethan Bronner and Tim Ross,
"Maduro Stymied in Bid to Pull $1.2 Billion of Gold From U.K.," Bloomberg, January 25, 2019. Anticipating just such a double-cross,
President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe.
Well, if the StormTrumpers can tear down all the levers and institutions of international US dollar strength, perhaps they
can also tear down all the institutions of Corporate Globalonial Forced Free Trade. That itself may BE our escape . . . if there
are enough millions of Americans who have turned their regionalocal zones of habitation into economically and politically armor-plated
Transition Towns, Power-Down Zones, etc. People and places like that may be able to crawl up out of the rubble and grow and defend
little zones of semi-subsistence survival-economics.
If enough millions of Americans have created enough such zones, they might be able to link up with eachother to offer hope
of a movement to make America in general a semi-autarchik, semi-secluded and isolated National Survival Economy . . . . much smaller
than today, perhaps likelier to survive the various coming ecosystemic crash-cramdowns, and no longer interested in leading or
dominating a world that we would no longer have the power to lead or dominate.
We could put an end to American Exceptionalism. We could lay this burden down. We could become American Okayness Ordinarians.
Make America an okay place for ordinary Americans to live in.
If Populists, I assume that's what you mean by "Storm Troopers", offer me M4A and revitalized local economies, and deliver
them, they have my support and more power to them.
That's why Trump was elected, his promises, not yet delivered, were closer to that then the Democrats' promises. If the Democrats
promised those things and delivered, then they would have my support.
If the Democrats run a candidate, who has a no track record of delivering such things, we stay home on election day. Trump
can have it, because it won't be any worse.
I don't give a damn about "social issues." Economics, health care and avoiding WWIII are what motivates my votes, and I think
more and more people are going to vote the same way.
Good point about Populist versus StormTrumper. ( And by the way, I said StormTRUMper, not StormTROOper). I wasn't thinking
of the Populists. I was thinking of the neo-etc. vandals and arsonists who want us to invade Venezuela, leave the JCPOA with Iran,
etc. Those are the people who will finally drive the other-country governments into creating their own parallel payment systems,
etc.
And the midpoint of those efforts will leave wreckage and rubble for us to crawl up out of. But we will have a chance to crawl
up out of it.
My reason for voting for Trump was mainly to stop the Evil Clinton from getting elected and to reduce the chance of near immediate
thermonuclear war with Russia and to save the Assad regime in Syria from Clintonian overthrow and replacement with an Islamic
Emirate of Jihadistan.
Much of what will be attempted " in Trump's name" will be de-regulationism of all kinds delivered by the sorts of basic Republicans
selected for the various agencies and departments by Pence and Moore and the Koch Brothers. I doubt the Populist Voters wanted
the Koch-Pence agenda. But that was a risky tradeoff in return for keeping Clinton out of office.
The only Dems who would seek what you want are Sanders or maybe Gabbard or just barely Warren. The others would all be Clinton
or Obama all over again.
I couldn't really find any details about the new INSTEX system – have you got any good links to brush up on? I know they made
an announcement yesterday but how long until the new payment system is operational?
arguably wouldn't it be better if for USD hegemony to be dismantled? A strong USD hurts US exports, subsidizes American consumption
(by making commodities cheaper in relative terms), makes international trade (aka a 8,000-mile+ supply chain) easier.
For the sake of the environment, you want less of all three. Though obviously I don't like the idea of expensive gasoline,
natural gas or tube socks either.
It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive
Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence.
Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs,
but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and
settle for being a dominant minority.
Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast
their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change.
What this change would consist of, and how it would manifest, remained an open question. Would he pursue rapprochement with
Russia and pull troops out of the Middle East as he claimed to want to do during his 2016 campaign, would he doggedly pursue corruption
charges against Clinton and attempt to reform the FBI and CIA, or would he do both, neither, or something else entirely?
Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international
order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment
desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms".
Interesting times.
Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery
going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. Whether or not he ever had or has a coherent plan for the havoc he has
wrought, he has certainly been the agent for change many of us hoped he would be, in stark contrast to the criminal duopoly parties
who continue to oppose him, where the daily no news is always bad news all the same. To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you
don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the
best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles.
Look on some bright sides. Here is just one bright side to look on. President Trump has delayed and denied the Clinton Plan
to topple Assad just long enough that Russia has been able to help Assad preserve legitimate government in most of Syria and defeat
the Clinton's-choice jihadis.
That is a positive good. Unless you are pro-jihadi.
Clinton wasn't going to "benefit the greater good" either, and a very strong argument, based on her past behavior, can be made
that she represented the greater threat. Given that the choice was between her and Trump, I think voters made the right decision.
Hudson's done us a service in pulling these threads together. I'd missed the threats against the ICC judges. One question:
is it possible for INSTEX-like arrangements to function secretly? What is to be gained by announcing them publicly and drawing
the expected attacks? Does that help sharpen conflicts, and to what end?
Maybe they're done in secret already – who knows? The point of doing it publicly is to make a foreign-policy impact, in this
case withdrawing power from the US. It's a Declaration of Independence.
It certainly seems as though the 90 percent (plus) are an afterthought in this journey to who knows where? Like George C.Scott
said while playing Patton, "The whole world at economic war and I'm not part of it. God will not let this happen." Looks like
we're on the Brexit track (without the vote). The elite argue with themselves and we just sit and watch. It appears to me that
the elite just do not have the ability to contemplate things beyond their own narrow self interest. We are all deplorables now.
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected
Is not supported by this (or really the rest of the article). The past tense here, for example, is unwarranted:
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their
equity share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy.
And this
So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. Germany agreed
to slow down the transfer.
Doesn't show Germany as breaking free at all, and worse it is followed by the pregnant
But then came Venezuela.
Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet
again. Nothing to see here, actually.
So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change.
"So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change."
I'm surprised more people aren't recognizing this. I read the article waiting in vain for some evidence of "the end of our
monetary imperialism" besides some 'grumbling and foot dragging' as you aptly put it. There was some glimmer of a buried lede
with INTEX, created to get around U.S. sanctions against Iran ─ hardly a 'dam-breaking'. Washington is on record as being annoyed.
Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD
as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. World bond market flows are 10X the size
of world stock market flows even though the price of the Dow and Facebook shares etc get all of the headlines.
And foreign exchange flows are 10-50X the flows of bond markets, they're currently on the order of $5 *trillion* per day. And
since forex is almost completely unregulated it's quite difficult to get the data and spot reserve currency trends. Oh, and buy
gold. It's the only currency that requires no counterparty and is no one's debt obligation.
That's not what Hudson claims in his swaggering final sentence:
"The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed
observer like me."
Which is risible as not only did he fail to show anything of the kind, his opening sentence stated a completely different reality:
"The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected" So if we hold him to his first
declaration, his evidence is feeble, as I mentioned. As a scholar, his hyperbole is untrustworthy.
No, gold is pretty enough lying on the bosom of a lady-friend but that's about its only usefulness in the real world.
Always bemusing that gold bugs never talk about gold being in a bubble . yet when it goes south of its purchase price speak
in tongues about ev'bal forces.
thanks Mr. Hudson. One has to wonder what has happened when the government (for decades) has been shown to be morally and otherwise
corrupt and self serving. It doesn't seem to bother anyone but the people, and precious few of them. Was it our financial and
legal bankruptcy that sent us over the cliff?
Indeed! It is to say the least encouraging to see Dr. Hudson return so forcefully to the theme of 'monetary imperialism'.
I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you
haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. You can
find any number of articles on his web site that return periodically to the theme of monetary imperialism. I remember one in particular
that described how the rest of the world was brought on board to help pay for its good old-fashioned military imperialism.
If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt
status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long
as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington
neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be"
to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing.
Until the US returns to the path of genuine wealth creation, it is past time for the rest of the world to go its own way with
its banking and financial institutions.
In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same
pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3.
UK withholding Gold may start another Brexit? IE: funds/gold held by BOE for other countries in Africa, Asian, South America,
and the "stans" with start to depart, slowly at first, perhaps for Switzerland?
Where is the left in all this? Pretty much the same place as Michael Hudson, I'd say. Where is the US Democratic Party in all
this? Quite a different question, and quite a different answer. So far as I can see, the Democrats for years have bombed, invaded
and plundered other countries 'for their own good'. Republicans do it 'for the good of America', by which the ignoramuses mean
the USA. If you're on the receiving end, it doesn't make much difference.
Agreed! South America intervention and regime change, Syria ( Trump is pulling out), Iraq, Middle East meddling, all predate
Trump. Bush, Clinton and Obama have nothing to do with any of this.
" So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. "
What proof is there that the gold is still there? Chances are it's notional. All Germany, Venezuela, or the others have is
an IOU – and gold cannot be printed. Incidentally, this whole discussion means that gold is still money and the gold standard
still exists.
What makes you think that the gold in Fort Knox is still there? If I remember right, there was a Potemkin visit back in the
70s to assure everyone that the gold was still there but not since then. Wait, I tell a lie. There was another visit about two
years ago but look who was involved in that visit-
And I should mention that it was in the 90s that between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were manufactured in the
US under Clinton. Since then gold-coated tungsten bars have turned up in places like Germany, China, Ethiopia, the UK, etc so
who is to say if those gold bars in Fort Knox are gold all the way through either. More on this at --
http://viewzone2.com/fakegoldx.html
It wasn't last year that Germany brought back its Gold. It has been ongoing since 2013, after some political and popular pressure
build up. They finished the transaction in 2017. According to an article in Handelblatt (but it was widely reported back then)
they brought back pretty much everything they had in Paris (347t), left what they had in London (perhaps they should have done
it in reverse) and took home another 300t from the NY Fed. That still leaves 1236t in NY. But half of their Gold (1710t) is now
in Frankfurt. That is 50% of the Bundesbanks holdings.
They made a point in saying that every bar was checked and weighed and presented some bars in Frankfurt. I guess they didn't
melt them for assaying, but I'd expect them to be smart enough to check the density.
Their reason to keep Gold in NY and London is to quickly buy USD in case of a crisis. That's pretty much a cold war plan, but
that's what they do right now.
Regarding Michal Hudsons piece, I enjoyed reading through this one. He tends to write ridiculously long articles and in the
last few years with less time and motivation at hand I've skipped most of his texts on NC as they just drag on.
When I'm truly fascinated I like well written, long articles but somehow he lost me at some point. But I noticed that some
long original articles in US magazines, probably research for a long time by the journalist, can just drag on for ever as well
I just tune out.
This is making sense. I would guess that tearing up the old system is totally deliberate. It wasn't working so well for us
because we had to practice too much social austerity, which we have tried to impose on the EU as well, just to stabilize "king
dollar" – otherwise spread so thin it was a pending catastrophe.
Now we can get out from under being the reserve currency – the currency that maintains its value by financial manipulation
and military bullying domestic deprivation. To replace this old power trip we are now going to mainline oil. The dollar will become
a true petro dollar because we are going to commandeer every oil resource not already nailed down.
When we partnered with SA in Aramco and the then petro dollar the dollar was only backed by our military. If we start monopolizing
oil, the actual commodity, the dollar will be an apex competitor currency without all the foreign military obligations which will
allow greater competitive advantages.
No? I'm looking at PdVSA, PEMEX and the new "Energy Hub for the Eastern Mediterranean" and other places not yet made public.
It looks like a power play to me, not a hapless goofball president at all.
So sand people with sociological attachment to the OT is a compelling argument based on antiquarian preferences with authoritarian
patriarchal tendencies for their non renewable resource . after I might add it was deemed a strategic concern after WWII .
Considering the broader geopolitical realities I would drain all the gold reserves to zero if it was on offer . here natives
have some shiny beads for allowing us to resource extract we call this a good trade you maximize your utility as I do mine .
Hay its like not having to run C-corp compounds with western 60s – 70s esthetics and letting the locals play serf, blow back
pay back, and now the installed local chiefs can own the risk and refocus the attention away from the real antagonists.
Indeed. Thanks so much for this. Maybe the RICS will get serious now – can no longer include Brazil with Bolsonaro. There needs
to be an alternate system or systems in place, and to see US Imperialism so so blatantly and bluntly by Trump admin –
"US
gives Juan Guaido control over some Venezuelan assets" – should sound sirens on every continent and especially in the developing
world. I too hope there will be fracture to the point of breakage. Countries of the world outside the US/EU/UK/Canada/Australia
confraternity must now unite to provide a permanent framework outside the control of imperial interests. The be clear, this must
not default to alternative forms of imperialism germinating by the likes of China.
" such criticism can't begin to take in the full scope of the damage the Trump White House is inflicting on the system of global
power Washington built and carefully maintained over those 70 years. Indeed, American leaders have been on top of the world for
so long that they no longer remember how they got there.
Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it
now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's
inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of
a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble."
I read something like this and I am like, some of these statements need to be qualified. Like: "Driving China and Russia together".
Like where's the proof? Is Xi playing telephone games more often now with Putin? I look at those two and all I see are two egocentric
people who might sometimes say the right things but in general do not like the share the spotlight. Let's say they get together
to face America and for some reason the later gets "defeated", it's not as if they'll kumbaya together into the night.
This website often points out the difficulties in implementing new banking IT initiatives. Ok, so Europe has a new "payment
system". Has it been tested thoroughly? I would expect a couple of weeks or even months of chaos if it's not been tested, and
if it's thorough that probably just means that it's in use right i.e. all the kinks have been worked out. In that case the transition
is already happening anyway. But then the next crisis arrives and then everyone would need their dollar swap lines again which
probably needs to cleared through SWIFT or something.
Anyway, does this all mean that one day we'll wake up and a slice of bacon is 50 bucks as opposed to the usual 1 dollar?
Driving Russia and China together is correct. I recall them signing a variety of economic and military agreement a few years
ago. It was covered in the media. You should at least google an issue before making silly comments. You might start with the report
of Russia and China signing 30 cooperation agreements three years ago. See
https://www.rbth.com/international/2016/06/27/russia-china-sign-30-cooperation-agreements_606505
. There are lots and lots of others.
He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and
WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas.
The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical
foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed
the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run.
Whilst the far right factions fight over the rudder the only new game in town is AOC, Sanders, Warren, et al which Trumps supporters
hate with Ideological purity.
Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On
US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics"
on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners.
On a household level it fits, but there no "loser" household that in infinity can print money that the "winners" can accumulate
in exchange for their resources and fruits of labor.
One wonder what are Trumps idea of US being a winner in trade (surplus)? I.e. sending away their resources and fruits of labor
overseas in exchange for what? A pile of USD? That US in the first place created out of thin air. Or Chinese Yuan, Euros, Turkish
liras? Also fiat-money. Or does he think US trade surplus should be paid in gold?
When the US political and economic hegemony will unravel it will come "unexpected". Trump for sure are undermining it with
his megalomaniac ignorance. But not sure it's imminent.
Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash
will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence.
There will be fierce competition to fill the gap.
On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and
austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top.
I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect.
Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the
rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT.
The trade deficit required a large Government deficit to cover it and the US government could just create the money to cover
it.
Then ideological neoliberals came in wanting balanced budgets and not realising the Government deficit covered the trade deficit.
The US has been destabilising its own economy by reducing the Government deficit. Bill Clinton didn't realize a Government surplus is an indicator a financial crisis is about to hit. The last US Government surplus occurred in 1927 – 1930, they go hand-in-hand with financial crises.
Richard Koo shows the graph central bankers use and it's the flow of funds within the economy, which sums to zero (32-34 mins.).
The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy.
It should be remembered Bill Clinton's early meeting with Rubin, where in he was informed that wages and productivity had diverged –
Rubin did not blink an eye.
Sure. Let's invade Venezuela. Another jolly little war. It's full of commies and has a sea
of oil. The only thing those Cuban-loving Venezuelans lack are weapons of mass destruction.
... ... ...
Venezuela is in a huge economic mess thanks to the crackpot economic policies of the Chavez
and Maduro governments – and US economic sabotage. But my first law of international
affairs is: 'Every nation has the absolute god-given right to mismanage its own affairs and
elect its own crooks or idiots.'
Have you ever noticed how whenever someone inconveniences the dominant western power
structure, the entire political/media class rapidly becomes very, very interested in letting us
know how evil and disgusting that person is? It's true of the leader of every nation which
refuses to allow itself to be absorbed into the blob of the US-centralized power alliance, it's
true of anti-establishment political candidates, and it's true of WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange.
Corrupt and unaccountable power uses its
political and
media influence to smear Assange because, as far as the interests of corrupt and
unaccountable power are concerned, killing his reputation is as good as killing him. If
everyone can be paced into viewing him with hatred and revulsion, they'll be far less likely to
take WikiLeaks publications seriously, and they'll be far more likely to consent to Assange's
imprisonment, thereby
establishing a precedent for the future prosecution of leak-publishing journalists around
the world. Someone can be speaking 100 percent truth to you, but if you're suspicious of him
you won't believe anything he's saying. If they can manufacture that suspicion with total or
near-total credence, then as far as our rulers are concerned it's as good as putting a bullet
in his head.
Those of us who value truth and light need to fight this smear campaign in order to keep our
fellow man from signing off on a major leap in the direction of Orwellian dystopia, and a big
part of that means being able to argue against those smears and disinformation wherever they
appear. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any kind of centralized source of information
which comprehensively debunks all the smears in a thorough and engaging way, so with the help
of hundreds of
tips from my
readers and social media followers
I'm going to attempt to make one here. What follows is my attempt at creating a tool kit people
can use to fight against Assange smears wherever they encounter them, by refuting the
disinformation with truth and solid argumentation.
This article is an ongoing project which will be updated regularly where it appears on
Medium and caitlinjohnstone.com as new information comes in and new smears spring up in need of
refutation.
"... Haspel is not the "underling" . Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy. ..."
"... In the real organization chart for the empire the CIA is above the President. This has been the case in the US since Kennedy. ..."
"... Trump will not fire Haspel. He can't. He's just an actor playing a role in a show, and Haspel is one of the producers/writers of that show. If she doesn't put firing in the script then Trump cannot say those lines. I doubt he really wants to anyway. ..."
"If Trump were not in on the schemes he would just fire his underlings!"
This sentiment indicates a failure to understand the power dynamics at play here. Haspel
is not the "underling" . Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an
oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to
serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy.
In the real organization chart for the empire the CIA is above the President.
This has been the case in the US since Kennedy.
Trump cannot fire Haspel or Pompeo. They can fire him, though, and with a sniper's bullet
if they want.
Unfortunately for the oligarchy, that would cause additional complications at a time when
they have lots of tricky and inexplicably unstable (for them) operations ongoing, which is
why they are just steering Trump around instead of replacing him. And Trump is willfully
cooperating, even if they are not filling him in on the plans.
Trump will not fire Haspel. He can't. He's just an actor playing a role in a show, and
Haspel is one of the producers/writers of that show. If she doesn't put firing in the script
then Trump cannot say those lines. I doubt he really wants to anyway.
"The media's interest in the well-being of a foreign population is directly proportional
to the West's interest in toppling its government, while editorial standards are inversely
proportional to its enemy status."--John McEvoy
So, lets employ this maxim to Russiagate and the Skripal Saga and the respective national
media. In the first case, the Russian public's completely ignored unless it's a member of the
so-called opposition while Putin and Russia get slandered constantly. The same treatment goes
for the UK media and a case could be made that the two act in tandem, implying
innerconnectivity between their spy agencies as suspected.
That happened often when a second rate provincial lawyer became the Secretary of State. At least Kerry knows French. Pompeo
knows absolution nothing and is capable only of repeating old cliché.
Today's special word is: Projection
Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo should go into advertising. Since the late '50's, we've torn Latin America to shreds, but we're the good guys, eh?!. ..."
"... Doesn't Pompeo also believe in the rapture. ..."
Pompeo should go into advertising. Since the late '50's, we've torn Latin America to
shreds, but we're the good guys, eh?!.
I luv my country, but I hate my government.
beemasters
This must have been the most transparently crooked administration ever in the US history! Ain't that the pot calling the
kettle black!
2willies
Doesn't Pompeo also believe in the rapture.
Idaho potato head
At some point even the most deluded sheep has got to realize he is being lied to. Or is it just as in the Matrix, there is
an age limit as to when a mind can be awoken.
After reading CYMS1 below I retract that question.
Wealthy politicians and businessmen suspected of corruption in their native lands are fleeing to a safe haven where their wealth
and influence shields them from arrest.
They have entered this country on a variety of visas, including one designed to encourage investment. Some have applied for asylum,
which is intended to protect people fleeing oppression and political persecution.
The increasingly popular destination for people avoiding criminal charges is no pariah nation.
It's the United States.
An investigation by ProPublica, in conjunction with the Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University, has
found that officials fleeing prosecution in Colombia, China, South Korea, Bolivia and Panama have found refuge for themselves and
their wealth in this country, taking advantage of lax enforcement of U.S. laws and gaps in immigration and financial regulations.
Many have concealed their assets and real-estate purchases by creating trusts and limited liability companies in the names of lawyers
and relatives.
American authorities are supposed to vet visa applicants to make sure they are not under active investigation on criminal charges.
But the ProPublica examination shows that this requirement has been routinely ignored.
One of the most prominent cases involves a former president of Panama, who was allowed to enter the United States just days after
his country's Supreme Court opened an investigation into charges that he had helped embezzle $45 million from a government school
lunch program.
Ricardo Martinelli, a billionaire supermarket magnate, had been on the State Department's radar since he was elected in 2009.
That year, the U.S. ambassador to Panama began
sending diplomatic cables warning
about the president's "dark side," including his links to corruption and his request for U.S. support for wiretapping his opponents.
Soon after Martinelli left office in 2014, Panamanian prosecutors conducted a widely publicized investigation of corruption in
the school lunch program, and in mid-January 2015, forwarded their findings to the country's Supreme Court.
On Jan. 28, 2015,
just hours before
the Supreme Court announced a formal probe into the charges, Martinelli boarded a private plane, flew to Guatemala City for a
meeting and then entered the United States on a visitor visa. Within weeks, he was living comfortably in the Atlantis, a luxury condominium
on Miami's swanky Brickell Avenue. He is still here.
The State Department declined to comment on Martinelli's case, saying visa records are confidential and it is the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection that decides who is allowed to enter the country. CBP said privacy regulations prevent the agency from commenting
on Martinelli.
Efforts to reach Martinelli, including a registered letter sent to his Miami address, were unsuccessful.
In September this year, Panama asked to extradite Martinelli, but the former president is fighting that request, arguing there
are no legal grounds to bring him back to his home country where the investigation has broadened to include insider trading, corruption
and abuse of authority. Last December, Panama's high court issued a warrant for his arrest on charges that he used public funds to
spy on over 150 political opponents. If found guilty, he could face up to 21 years in jail.
Rogelio Cruz, who is defending Martinelli in Panama's Supreme Court, said that the former president "will return to Panama once
adequate conditions exist with respect to due process, where there are independent judges -- which there aren't."
The United States has explicit policies that bar issuing visas to foreign officials facing criminal charges in their homelands.
In 2004, President George W. Bush issued a proclamation
designed to keep the United States from becoming a haven for corrupt officials. Proclamation 7750, which has the force and effect
of law, directed the State Department to ban officials who have accepted bribes or misappropriated public funds when their actions
have "serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States."
Under the rules implementing Bush's order, consular officers do not need a conviction or even formal charges to justify denying
a visa. They can stamp "denied" based on information from unofficial, or informal sources, including newspaper articles, according
to diplomats and State Department officials interviewed for this report.
The State Department declined to provide the number of times Proclamation 7750 has been invoked, but insisted that it has been
used "robustly."
But numerous other foreign government officials, including former presidents and cabinet ministers, have slipped through the cracks,
according to court documents, diplomatic cables and interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys in the United States and abroad.
The charges involved a wide range of misconduct, from stealing public funds to accepting bribes.
Six months before Martinelli entered the United States, a former Colombian agriculture minister and onetime presidential candidate,
Andres Felipe Arias, fled to Miami three weeks before he was convicted of funneling $12.5 million to wealthy political supporters
from a subsidy program that was intended to reduce inequality in rural areas and protect farmers from the effects of globalization.
The U.S. embassy in Bogota had been following Arias' trial closely and
reporting on the scandal in cables to Washington.
The trial
featured documents and witnesses saying that under Arias' watch, the agriculture ministry had doled out millions in subsidies
to affluent families, some of whom, according to media reports, had donated to Arias' political allies or his presidential campaign.
Subsidies went to relatives of congressmen, companies owned by the richest man in Colombia, and a former beauty queen. One powerful
family and its associates received over $2.5 million, according to records released by prosecutors. Another family, which included
relatives of a former senator, received $1.3 million. Both families had supported Arias' chief political ally, former Colombian President
Alvaro Uribe, with campaign contributions.
The law that
established the program did not ban wealthy landowners from getting grants, but some elite families had received multiple subsidies
for the same farm. They gamed the system by submitting multiple proposals in the names of different family members and by subdividing
their land so they could apply for grants for each parcel, court records indicate.
Yet, in November 2013, while the trial was going on, the U.S. embassy in Bogota renewed Arias' visitor visa. The State Department
refused to discuss the case, saying that visa records are confidential. But a
recent filing in federal court
showed that the U.S. embassy had flagged Arias' application, and asked him to provide documents to support his request to leave the
country while charges were pending. Arias submitted documents from the Colombian court, including a judicial order that allowed him
to travel. In the end, the embassy issued a visa because he had not yet been convicted.
Andres Felipe Arias, a former Colombian agriculture minister, who fled to the United States before he could be convicted
of funneling money from a subsidy program (GDA via AP Images)
On the night of June 13, 2014, three weeks before the judges convicted him of embezzlement by appropriation, a Colombian law that
penalizes the unauthorized use of public funds to benefit private entities, Arias packed his bags and boarded a plane. The following
month, the U.S. embassy in Bogota revoked the visa. But Arias hired an immigration attorney and applied for asylum.
"If you looked up 'politically motivated charges' in the dictionary, there would be a picture of Andres Arias next to it," said
David Oscar Markus, Arias' lead attorney. "The case [against him] is absurd and not even one that is recognized in the United States."
Over the next two years, Arias built a new life in South Florida with his wife and two children, opening a small consulting company
and renting a house in Weston.
On August 24, he was
arrested by U.S.
authorities in response to an extradition request from Colombia. He spent several months in a detention facility until his release
on bail in mid-November. Arias argues that the United States cannot extradite him because it has no active extradition treaty with
Colombia, but the U.S. Attorney's Office disagrees. A plea for asylum does not shield defendants from extradition if they are charged
in Colombia with a crime covered by the treaty between the two countries.
The agency that administers the program, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, has adopted regulations designed to prevent
fraud, including requiring foreign investors to submit evidence, such as tax returns and bank statements, to prove they obtained
their money legally.
But these safeguards did not stop the daughter-in-law and grandsons of former South Korean dictator Chun Doo-hwan from using Chun's
ill-gotten gains to get U.S. permanent residency.
In 1996, a Korean court convicted Chun of receiving more than $200 million in bribes while in office in the 1980s, from companies
such as Samsung and Hyundai. He was ordered to return the bribes, but refused.
Part of Chun's fortune was funneled into the United States through his son, who purchased a $2.2 million house in Newport Beach,
California, according to South Korean prosecutors and real-estate records.
Millions of dollars from Chun's bribery proceeds were hidden in bearer bonds, which are notoriously difficult to trace. Unlike
regular bonds, which belong to registered owners, there is no record kept about the ownership or transfer of bearer bonds. The bonds
can be cashed out by whoever has them.
Former South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan addresses the press at the White House in 1985. Chun's relatives later gained
permanent residency in the United States by using money Chun obtained through bribes. (Bettmann via Getty Images)
In 2008, Chun's daughter-in-law, a South Korean actress named Park Sang-ah, applied for an immigrant investor visa. Park listed
her husband's bearer bonds as the source of her funds without mentioning that the money had been initially provided to him by Chun.
Eight months later, Park and her children received their conditional U.S. permanent residency cards in the mail.
In 2013, at the request of South Korean prosecutors, the U.S. Justice Department launched an investigation into the Chun family's
wealth in the United States and subsequently
seized $1.2 million of the family's U.S. assets in the United States. The money was returned to South Korea. Despite that, Chun's
family members have retained their residency status.
Chun's relatives obtained their permanent residency by investing in an EB-5 project managed by the Philadelphia Industrial Development
Corporation, a nonprofit company. The PIDC pooled Chun's $500,000 with money from 200 other foreign investors to finance an expansion
of the Pennsylvania Convention Center in downtown Philadelphia.
The same project in Philadelphia also helped to secure permanent residency for Qiao Jianjun, a Chinese government official accused
of embezzling more than $40 million from a state-owned grain storehouse, according to reports in the People's Daily, the Chinese
Communist Party's newspaper. Qiao had divorced his wife, Shilan Zhao, in China in 2001, a fact he did not disclose to U.S. immigration
authorities. When Zhao applied for an EB-5 visa, Qiao qualified for U.S. permanent residency as an applicant's spouse.
The Justice Department launched an investigation only when it was tipped off by Chinese authorities. In January 2014,
a federal grand jury indicted Zhao and her ex-husband, Qiao, for immigration fraud, money laundering and internationally transporting
stolen funds. Zhao was arrested and released on bail. Federal authorities are pursuing Qiao, whose whereabouts remain unknown.
A trial has been set for February 2017. U.S. government attorneys have filed asset forfeiture cases to recover real estate linked
to Qiao and Zhao in Flushing, New York, and Monterey Park, California.
In April 2015, Qiao appeared on the Chinese
government's list of 100 "most wanted" officials who fled abroad after being accused of crimes such as bribery and corruption.
He and 39 other government officials and state-owned enterprise leaders on the list allegedly fled to the United States.
The list, called "Operation Skynet," is part of Chinese President Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign, which has vowed to take
down what Chinese officials describe as corrupt "tigers" and "flies" within the country's ruling Communist Party.
Fengxian Hu was another fugitive on China's list. A former army singer and radio broadcaster, Hu headed the state-owned broadcasting
company that had a joint venture with Pepsi to distribute soft drinks in Sichuan province. In 2002, The Washington Post and The Wall
Street Journal
reported that Pepsi had accused Hu of looting the joint venture and using company funds to buy fancy cars and go on European
tours.
The same year, in a widely publicized move, Pepsi filed a case with international arbitrators in Stockholm, asking that the joint
venture be dissolved. Despite this, Hu was given a visa that allowed him to fly regularly to Las Vegas, where he was a VIP client
at the MGM casino.
In January 2010, Chinese authorities investigated Hu for corruption. But the month before, Hu had entered the United States on
a B1 visitor visa, joining his wife, a U.S. citizen living in New York.
Hu tried to obtain a green card through his wife, but the petition was rejected by U.S. immigration authorities. He applied for
asylum instead.
Meanwhile, he had gotten into trouble in the United States for losing millions in a Las Vegas casino and failing to pay a $12
million gambling debt. In 2012, he was indicted in a Nevada court on two counts of theft and one count of intentionally passing a
check without sufficient funds.
Hu pled not guilty to the charges; his lawyers claimed that his checks bounced because his bank account had been closed by Chinese
authorities. The charges against him in the U.S. were considered an aggravated felony, which is a common basis for deportation. Hu,
however, had a pending asylum case and so could not be deported.
In August 2015, a New York immigration judge denied the asylum claim. But Hu's lawyers argued that he would be tortured if he
returned to China and invoked the United Nations Convention
Against Torture , which says that an alien may not be sent to a country where he is likely to be tortured. In the end, the immigration
court suspended Hu's removal order, allowing him to remain in the United States and work here indefinitely. He will not, however,
be given permanent residency or be allowed to travel outside the country.
The absence of an extradition treaty -- coupled with a high standard of living -- makes the United States a favored destination
for Chinese officials and businessmen fleeing corruption charges.
In April 2015, Jeh Johnson, the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security , made a 48-hour trip to Beijing. The visit
was intended to pave the way for Chinese President Xi Jinping's U.S. visit in September 2015, according to a memorandum Johnson wrote,
which was obtained through a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
In the memo, Johnson said the Chinese government is seeking 132 people it said have fled to the United States to avoid prosecution.
This represents a greater number of fugitives than Chinese authorities have publicly acknowledged.
"I'm told that in prior discussions, the Chinese have been frustrated by the lack of any information from us about the 132 fugitives,"
Johnson wrote.
The Chinese request for assistance posed a dilemma for the United States. American officials are concerned about a lack of fairness
in China's criminal justice system. Human rights groups say that China continues to use torture to extract false confessions from
suspected criminals. Torture has also been documented to be part of shuanggui -- a secretive discipline process reserved for
members of the Chinese Communist Party.
Some analysts see the crackdown on corrupt officials as part of a purge aimed at the current regime's political rivals and ideological
enemies. U.S. officials say this makes returning corrupt officials to China a delicate issue for the United States.
In 2003, headlines around the world reported
widespread
street protests in Bolivia that led to security forces killing 58 people, most of them members of indigenous groups. Not long
afterward, as protesters massed up on the streets of La Paz demanding his resignation, Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada
resigned and fled his country along with his defense minister, Jose Carlos Sanchez Berzain.
The two men flew to the United States, where they continue to reside. In 2006, Berzain applied for political asylum, which he
was granted in 2007. On
his application, when the form asked, "Have you or your family members ever been accused, charged, arrested, detained, interrogated,
convicted and sentenced, or imprisoned in any country other than the United States?" Berzain checked the box "no," even though by
then he and de Lozada had been formally accused of
genocide by Bolivia's attorney
general. The indictment was approved
by Bolivia's Supreme Court in 2007. Berzain also stated on his application that the State Department had arranged for his travel
to the United States.
The de Lozada administration was vocally pro-American. Before it was ousted, officials had announced they would facilitate gas
exports to the United States.
After their departure, Bolivia's attorney general
publicly stated
that the administration had embezzled millions from government coffers, but did not formally file charges. He said de Lozada
had taken some $22 million from the country's reserve funds before fleeing.
De Lozada and members of his administration have dismissed the allegations as part of a politically motivated smear campaign,
but there is evidence to suggest irregularities may have occurred in the handling of the reserve funds. The former president signed
a decree shortly before leaving office authorizing the interior and finance ministers to withdraw money from Bolivia's reserve funds
without going through the normal approval process. De Lozada's former interior minister
pleaded guilty in 2004 to embezzlement after $270,000 in cash was found in an associate's home.
De Lozada, a mining mogul before he became president, moved to Chevy Chase, Maryland, an upscale suburb of Washington, D.C. He
now lives in a two-story brick house bought for $1.4 million by Macalester Limited, a limited liability company that was formed in
the British Virgin Islands and lists a post office box in the Bahamas as its principal address.
De Lozada's immigration status is unclear. He said in a sworn deposition in 2015 that he was not a U.S. citizen. His son-in-law,
who spoke to ProPublica on his behalf, would not say whether de Lozada had applied for asylum.
Berzain, meanwhile, settled in South Florida. Records show that he and his brother-in-law personally own or are listed as officers
or members of business entities that together control around $9 million worth of Miami real estate.
Some of the purchases were made in the names of entities that appear to list different variations of Berzain's name in business
records.
In addition, in the purchase of two properties, Berzain's name was added to business records only after the deal had gone through.
Berzain's brother-in-law incorporated a company called Warren USA Corp in October 2010, for example, and the company purchased a
$1.4 million residential property the following month. Three weeks after Warren USA Corp became the owner of an elegant Spanish-style
villa in Key Biscayne, Berzain was added as the company's secretary.
The following year, in May 2011, Berzain's brother-in-law created Galen KB Corp and registered as the company's president. A month
later, Galen KB Corp purchased a $250,000 condo. In August, Berzain replaced his brother-in-law as the company's president, according
to business records. Berzain is no longer listed as a company officer in either company.
During an interview in January, Berzain told ProPublica "I don't have any companies." When asked about several of the companies
associated with his name or address in public records, the former defense minister said he had a consulting firm that helped clients
set up companies and that he was sometimes added to the board of directors. Efforts to reach Berzain's brother-in-law, a wealthy
businessman and the owner of a bus company in Bolivia, were unsuccessful. Berzain's brother-in-law has not been accused of any wrongdoing.
The practice of purchasing real estate in the name of a business entity like a limited liability company, or LLC, is a common
and legal practice in high-end real-estate markets, and one that enables celebrities and other wealthy individuals to protect their
privacy.
But the practice also allows foreign officials to hide ill-gotten gains. U.S. regulations allow individuals to form business entities
like LLCs without disclosing the beneficial owner. The LLCs can be registered in the names of lawyers, accountants or other associates
-- or even anonymously in some states -- and used to purchase real estate, making it nearly impossible to determine the actual owner
of a property.
Government investigators and lawmakers have pointed out persistent gaps in U.S. policy that have enabled corrupt officials to
evade justice and hide their assets in this country. But little has changed.
Last year, a U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation
said it can be "difficult" for immigration officials to identify the true source of an immigrant investor's funds. Immigration
officials told the government auditors that EB-5 applicants with ties to corruption, the drug trade, human trafficking and other
criminal activities have a strong incentive to omit key details about their financial histories or lie on their applications.
"It's very easy to get lost in the noise if you're a bad person," said Seto Bagdoyan, the accountability office's director of
forensic audits, who co-authored the GAO report.
Immigration officials, he added, have an "almost nonexistent" ability to thoroughly evaluate investors' backgrounds and trace
their assets.
Despite such weaknesses, Congress has continually
extended the EB-5
program with minor changes. The program is backed by
real-estate lobbyists who argue that it is a crucial source of financing for luxury condos and hotels. The program is
expected to thrive in a
Trump presidency because the president-elect is a developer and his son-in-law Jared Kushner received $50 million in EB-5 funds to
build a Trump-branded tower in New Jersey.
In 2010, a Senate report described how powerful foreign officials and their relatives moved millions of dollars in suspect funds
into the United States. The report said investors bypassed anti-money laundering regulations with help from U.S. lawyers, real-estate
agents, and banking institutions. Last year, ABC News
reported that lobbyists for real estate and other business groups spent $30 million in 2015 in an effort to protect the EB-5
program.
Senate investigators proposed legislation that would require companies to disclose their beneficial owners and make it easier
for authorities to restrict entry, deny visas and deport corrupt foreign officials.
A few of the proposals have been adopted, but they have not made much difference. Banks have stepped up their efforts to identify
corrupt officials and monitor their accounts. Professional groups such as the American Bar Association have issued non-binding guidelines
for their members on compliance with anti-money-laundering controls. The U.S. government has also worked with the
Financial Action Task Force , an international body set up
to fight money laundering, to bring its anti-corruption controls in accordance with the body's guidelines.
In May, the Treasury Department enacted a new rule that will take full effect in 2018 and will require financial institutions
to identify the beneficial owners of shell companies. Some advocates see the rule as a step backward. The new rule allows shell companies
to designate the manager of the account as the beneficial owner, concealing the identity of the person ultimately exercising control.
The State Department declined to say what progress, if any, it has made on the Senate subcommittee's recommendation to more aggressively
deny visas through Proclamation 7750. "The Department takes seriously congressional recommendations and devotes resources to addressing
corruption worldwide," a State Department official wrote in response to questions.
In 2010, then-Attorney General Eric Holder launched the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative. The small unit, which has grown
to include 16 attorneys, aims to recover assets in the United States that are tied to foreign corruption and return the money to
the looted countries.
Over the past six years, the unit has filed around two dozen civil asset forfeiture cases in an attempt to seize money, real estate
and other assets tied to government officials from 16 countries. Assets have ranged from a lone diamond-encrusted glove worn by Michael
Jackson that was purchased by Equatorial Guinea's Vice President, Teodoro Obiang, to a $1 billion fund tied to Malaysian Prime Minister
Najib Razak.
Yet most of the money the Department of Justice has pursued remains in limbo. The case involving Chun, the former president of
South Korea, is one of only two instances in which corrupt gains have been returned to the home country through the Justice Department's
efforts. The other arose when Justice Department officials
returned $1.5 million to Taiwan from property bought with bribes paid to the family of Chun Shui Bian, the former president of
Taiwan.
The agency faces myriad challenges when attempting to seize and return assets acquired by corrupt foreign officials, including
a lack of witnesses, said Kendall Day, head of the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section. These officials
often shield their transactions through shell companies, offshore companies or a network of associates.
"The mission of the Kleptocracy Initiative is really to target what we call grand foreign corruption that impacts the U.S. financial
system," Day said, citing the Chun case as an example.
The 2012 Magnitsky Act gives the government power to deny visas and freeze the assets of Russian nationals accused of corruption
or human rights violations. The Global Magnitsky Act would extend the same sanctions to the rest of the world, but it has yet to
be passed by Congress. Unlike Proclamation 7750, the Magnitsky laws require the government to publish a list of foreign government
officials who are barred from the United States.
In addition, the Treasury Department imposed regulations this year that aim to crack down on the use of shell companies to purchase
real estate in places like Miami and Manhattan. Title insurance companies are now required to identify the real owners of companies
purchasing high-end real estate without a mortgage. These regulations, however, are temporary.
This article by late Robert Parry is from 2016 but is still relevant in context of the
current Ukrainian elections and the color revolution is Venezuela. The power of neoliberal
propaganda is simply tremendous. For foreign events it is able to distort the story to such an
extent that the most famous quote of CIA director William Casey "We'll know our disinformation
program is complete when everything the American public believes is false" looks like
constatation of already accomplished goal.
Exclusive: Several weeks before Ukraine's 2014 coup, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Nuland had already picked Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be the future leader, but now "Yats" is no
longer the guy, writes Robert Parry.
In reporting on the resignation of Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the major
U.S. newspapers either ignored or distorted Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland's
infamous intercepted
phone call before the 2014 coup in which she declared "Yats is the guy!"
Though Nuland's phone call introduced many Americans to the previously obscure Yatsenyuk,
its timing – a few weeks before the ouster of elected Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych – was never helpful to Washington's desired narrative of the Ukrainian people
rising up on their own to oust a corrupt leader.
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the
Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders.
Instead, the conversation between Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt
sounded like two proconsuls picking which Ukrainian politicians would lead the new government.
Nuland also disparaged the less aggressive approach of the European Union with the pithy
put-down: "Fuck the E.U.!"
More importantly, the intercepted call, released onto YouTube in early February 2014,
represented powerful evidence that these senior U.S. officials were plotting – or at
least collaborating in – a coup d'etat against Ukraine's democratically elected
president. So, the U.S. government and the mainstream U.S. media have since consigned this
revealing discussion to the Great Memory Hole.
On Monday, in reporting on Yatsenyuk's Sunday speech in which he announced that he is
stepping down, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal didn't mention the Nuland-Pyatt
conversation at all. The New York Times did mention the call but misled its readers regarding
its timing, making it appear as if the call followed rather than preceded the coup. That way
the call sounded like two American officials routinely appraising Ukraine's future leaders, not
plotting to oust one government and install another.
The Times
article by Andrew E. Kramer said: "Before Mr. Yatsenyuk's appointment as prime minister in
2014, a leaked recording of a telephone conversation between Victoria J. Nuland, a United
States assistant secretary of state, and the American ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt,
seemed to underscore the West's support for his candidacy. 'Yats is the guy,' Ms. Nuland had
said."
Notice, however, that if you didn't know that the conversation occurred in late January or
early February 2014, you wouldn't know that it preceded the Feb. 22, 2014 coup. You might have
thought that it was just a supportive chat before Yatsenyuk got his new job.
You also wouldn't know that much of the Nuland-Pyatt conversation focused on how they
were going to "glue this thing" or "midwife this thing," comments sounding like prima facie
evidence that the U.S. government was engaged in "regime change" in Ukraine, on Russia's
border.
The 'No Coup' Conclusion
But Kramer's lack of specificity about the timing and substance of the call fits with a long
pattern of New York Times' bias in its coverage of the Ukraine crisis. On Jan. 4, 2015, nearly
a year after the U.S.-backed coup, the Times published an "investigation" article declaring
that there never had been a coup. It was just a case of President Yanukovych deciding to leave
and not coming back.
That article reached its conclusion, in part, by ignoring the evidence of a coup, including
the Nuland-Pyatt phone call. The story was co-written by Kramer and so it is interesting to
know that he was at least aware of the "Yats is the guy" reference although it was ignored in
last year's long-form article.
Instead, Kramer and his co-author Andrew Higgins took pains to mock anyone who actually
looked at the evidence and dared reach the disfavored conclusion about a coup. If you did, you
were some rube deluded by Russian propaganda.
"Russia has attributed Mr. Yanukovych's ouster to what it portrays as a violent,
'neo-fascist' coup supported and even choreographed by the West and dressed up as a popular
uprising," Higgins and Kramer
wrote . "Few outside the Russian propaganda bubble ever seriously entertained the Kremlin's
line. But almost a year after the fall of Mr. Yanukovych's government, questions remain about
how and why it collapsed so quickly and completely."
The Times' article concluded that Yanukovych "was not so much overthrown as cast adrift by
his own allies, and that Western officials were just as surprised by the meltdown as anyone
else. The allies' desertion, fueled in large part by fear, was accelerated by the seizing by
protesters of a large stock of weapons in the west of the country. But just as important, the
review of the final hours shows, was the panic in government ranks created by Mr. Yanukovych's
own efforts to make peace."
Yet, one might wonder what the Times thinks a coup looks like. Indeed, the Ukrainian coup
had many of the same earmarks as such classics as the CIA-engineered regime changes in Iran in
1953 and in Guatemala in 1954.
The way those coups played out is now historically well known. Secret U.S. government
operatives planted nasty propaganda about the targeted leader, stirred up political and
economic chaos, conspired with rival political leaders, spread rumors of worse violence to come
and then – as political institutions collapsed – watched as the scared but duly
elected leader made a hasty departure.
In Iran, the coup reinstalled the autocratic Shah who then ruled with a heavy hand for the
next quarter century; in Guatemala, the coup led to more than three decades of brutal military
regimes and the killing of some 200,000 Guatemalans.
Coups don't have to involve army tanks occupying the public squares, although that is an
alternative model which follows many of the same initial steps except that the military is
brought in at the end. The military coup was a common approach especially in Latin America in
the 1960s and 1970s.
' Color Revolutions'
But the preferred method in more recent years has been the "color revolution," which
operates behind the façade of a "peaceful" popular uprising and international pressure
on the targeted leader to show restraint until it's too late to stop the coup. Despite the
restraint, the leader is still accused of gross human rights violations, all the better to
justify his removal.
Later, the ousted leader may get an image makeover; instead of a cruel bully, he is
ridiculed for not showing sufficient resolve and letting his base of support melt away, as
happened with Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.
But the reality of what happened in Ukraine was never hard to figure out. Nor did you have
to be inside "the Russian propaganda bubble" to recognize it. George Friedman, the founder of
the global intelligence firm Stratfor, called Yanukovych's overthrow "the most blatant coup
in history."
Which is what it appears if you consider the evidence. The first step in the process was to
create tensions around the issue of pulling Ukraine out of Russia's economic orbit and
capturing it in the European Union's gravity, a plan defined by influential American neocons in
2013.
On Sept. 26, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, who has been a
major neocon paymaster for decades, took to the op-ed page of the neocon Washington Post and
called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step toward toppling Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
At the time, Gershman, whose NED is funded by the U.S. Congress to the tune of about $100
million a year, was financing scores of projects inside Ukraine training activists, paying for
journalists and organizing business groups.
As for the even bigger prize -- Putin -- Gershman wrote: "Ukraine's choice to join Europe
will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents.
Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near
abroad but within Russia itself."
At that time, in early fall 2013, Ukraine's President Yanukovych was exploring the idea of
reaching out to Europe with an association agreement. But he got cold feet in November 2013
when economic experts in Kiev advised him that the Ukrainian economy would suffer a $160
billion hit if it separated from Russia, its eastern neighbor and major trading partner. There
was also the West's demand that Ukraine accept a harsh austerity plan from the International
Monetary Fund.
Yanukovych wanted more time for the E.U. negotiations, but his decision angered many western
Ukrainians who saw their future more attached to Europe than Russia. Tens of thousands of
protesters began camping out at Maidan Square in Kiev, with Yanukovych ordering the police to
show restraint.
Meanwhile, with Yanukovych shifting back toward Russia, which was offering a more generous
$15 billion loan and discounted natural gas, he soon became the target of American neocons and
the U.S. media, which portrayed Ukraine's political unrest as a black-and-white case of a
brutal and corrupt Yanukovych opposed by a saintly "pro-democracy" movement.
Cheering an Uprising
The Maidan uprising was urged on by American neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs Nuland, who passed out cookies at the Maidan and reminded Ukrainian
business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European
aspirations."
A screen shot of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland
speaking to U.S. and Ukrainian business leaders on Dec. 13, 2013, at an event sponsored by
Chevron, with its logo to Nuland's left.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, also showed up, standing on stage with right-wing extremists
from the Svoboda Party and telling the crowd that the United States was with them in their
challenge to the Ukrainian government.
As the winter progressed, the protests grew more violent. Neo-Nazi and other extremist
elements from Lviv and other western Ukrainian cities began arriving in well-organized brigades
or "sotins" of 100 trained street fighters. Police were attacked with firebombs and other
weapons as the violent protesters began seizing government buildings and unfurling Nazi banners
and even a Confederate flag.
Though Yanukovych continued to order his police to show restraint, he was still depicted
in the major U.S. news media as a brutal thug who was callously murdering his own people. The
chaos reached a climax on Feb. 20 when mysterious snipers opened fire, killing both police and
protesters. As the police retreated, the militants advanced brandishing firearms and other
weapons. The confrontation led to significant loss of life, pushing the death toll to around 80
including more than a dozen police.
U.S. diplomats and the mainstream U.S. press immediately blamed Yanukovych for the sniper
attack, though the circumstances remain murky to this day and some investigations have
suggested that the lethal sniper fire came from buildings controlled by Right Sektor
extremists.
To tamp down the worsening violence, a shaken Yanukovych signed a European-brokered deal on
Feb. 21, in which he accepted reduced powers and an early election so he could be voted out of
office. He also agreed to requests from Vice President Joe Biden to pull back the police.
The precipitous police withdrawal opened the path for the neo-Nazis and other street
fighters to seize presidential offices and force Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their
lives. The new coup regime was immediately declared "legitimate" by the U.S. State Department
with Yanukovych sought on murder charges. Nuland's favorite, Yatsenyuk, became the new prime
minister.
Throughout the crisis, the mainstream U.S. press hammered home the theme of white-hatted
protesters versus a black-hatted president. The police were portrayed as brutal killers who
fired on unarmed supporters of "democracy." The good-guy/bad-guy narrative was all the American
people heard from the major media.
The New York Times went so far as to delete the slain policemen from the narrative and
simply report that the police had killed all those who died in the Maidan. A typical Times
report on March 5, 2014, summed up the storyline: "More than 80 protesters were shot to death
by the police as an uprising spiraled out of control in mid-February."
The mainstream U.S. media also sought to discredit anyone who observed the obvious fact that
an unconstitutional coup had just occurred. A new theme emerged that portrayed Yanukovych as
simply deciding to abandon his government because of the moral pressure from the noble and
peaceful Maidan protests.
Any reference to a "coup" was dismissed as "Russian propaganda." There was a parallel
determination in the U.S. media to discredit or ignore evidence that neo-Nazi militias had
played an important role in ousting Yanukovych and in the subsequent suppression of anti-coup
resistance in eastern and southern Ukraine. That opposition among ethnic-Russian Ukrainians
simply became "Russian aggression."
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a
Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
This refusal to notice what was actually a remarkable story – the willful unleashing
of Nazi storm troopers on a European population for the first time since World War II –
reached absurd levels as The New York Times and The Washington Post buried references to the
neo-Nazis at the end of stories, almost as afterthoughts.
The Washington Post went to the extreme of rationalizing Swastikas and other Nazi symbols by
quoting one militia commander as calling them "romantic" gestures by impressionable young men.
[See Consortiumnews.com's " Ukraine's
'Romantic' Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers ."]
But today – more than two years after what U.S. and Ukrainian officials like to
call "the Revolution of Dignity" – the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government is sinking into
dysfunction, reliant on handouts from the IMF and Western governments.
And, in a move perhaps now more symbolic than substantive, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk is
stepping down. Yats is no longer the guy.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Khalid Talaat , April 16, 2016 at 20:39
Is it too far fetched to think that all these color revolutions are a perfection of the
process to unleash another fake color revolution, only this time it is a Red, White and Blue
revolution here at home? Those that continue to booze and snooze while watching the tube will
not know the difference until it is too late.
The freedom and tranquility of our country depends on finding and implementing a
counterweight to the presstitutes and their propaganda. The alternative is too
destructive in its natural development.
Abe , April 15, 2016 at 18:49
Yats and Porko are the guys who broke Ukraine. By the end of December 2015, Ukraine's
gross domestic product had shrunk around 19 percent in comparison with 2013. Its decimated
industrial sector needs less fuel. Yatsie did a heck of a job.
The timing of "Yats" departure is ominous. Mid-April, six weeks from now would be the
first chance to renew the invasion of DPR Donesk/Lugansk."Yats" failed in 2014, and didn't
try in 2015. Who is "the new guy"? Will the new Prime Minister begin raving about renewing
the holy war to recover the lost oblasts? 2016 is really Ukraine's last chance. Ukraine
refuses to implement Minsk2, and they have been receiving lots of new weapons. I believe
President Putin put the Syrian operation on " standby" not only to avoid approaching the
border, provoking a Turkish intervention, but also so he can give undistracted attention to
DPR Donesk/Lugansk.
Bill Rood , April 12, 2016 at 11:50
I guess I must be inside the Russian propaganda bubble. It was obvious to me when I
looked at the YouTube videos of policemen burning after being hit with Molotov
cocktails.
We played the same game of encouraging government "restraint" in Syria, where we
demanded Assad free "political prisoners," but we now accuse him of deliberately encouraging
ISIS by freeing those people, so that he can point to ISIS and ask, "Do you want that?"
Targeted leaders are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Andrei , April 12, 2016 at 10:26
"the Ukrainian coup had many of the same earmarks as such classics as the
CIA-engineered regime changes in Iran in 1953 and in Guatemala in 1954", Romania 1989 Shots
were fired by snipers in order to stirr the crowds (sounds familiar?) and also by the army
after Ceasescu ran away, which resulted in civilians getting murdered. Could it possibly be
that it was said : "Iliescu (next elected president) is the guy!" ?
Joe L. , April 12, 2016 at 11:00
Check out the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela 2002, that is very
similar with protesters, snipers on rooftops, IMF immediately offering loans to the new coup
government, new government positions for the coup plotters, complacency with the media
– propaganda, funding by USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy etc. John
Pilger documents how the coup occurred in his documentary "War on Democracy" –
https://vimeo.com/16724719 .
archaos , April 12, 2016 at 09:45
It was noted in the minutes of Verkhovna Rada almost 2 years before Maidan 2 , that
Geoffrey Pyatt was fomenting and funding destabilisation of Ukraine.
All of Svoboda Nazis in parliament (and other fascisti) then booed the MP who stated
this.
Mark Thomason , April 12, 2016 at 06:57
Also, the Dutch voted "no" on the economic agreement the coup was meant to force through
instead of the Russian agreement accepted by the President it overthrew. Now both "Yats" and
the economic agreement are gone. All that is left is the war. Neocons are still happen.
They wanted the war. They really want to overthrow Putin, and Ukraine was just a tool in
that.
Realist , April 12, 2016 at 05:51
You're right, it doesn't have to be the military that carries out a coup by deploying
tanks on the National Mall. In 2000, it was the United States Supreme Court that exceeded
its constitutional authority and installed George W. Bush as president, though in reality he
had lost that election. I wonder when that move will rightfully be characterized as a coup by
the historians.
"On Sept. 26, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, who has
been a major neocon paymaster for decades, took to the op-ed page of the neocon Washington
Post and called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step toward toppling
Russian President Vladimir Putin."
It should be remembered that Victoria Nuland took up the post of Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs in Washington on September 18, 2013.
Coincidentally, two other women closely connected to events in Ukraine were also in
Washington during September 2013.
Friend of Nuland and boss of the IMF, which has its own HQ in Washington, Christine
Lagarde was swift to respond to a Ukraine request for IMF loans on February 27th 2014, just
five days after the removal of Yanukovych on February 22nd. Lagarde is pictured with
Baronness Catherine Ashton in Washington in a Facebook entry dated September 30th 2013.
Ashton was High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy at the
time.
Though visiting Kiev at the same time as Nuland in February 2014 Catherine Ashton never
appeared in public with her, which seems a little odd considering the women were on the same
mission, and talking to the same people. Nevertheless, despite appearing shy of being
photographed with each other the two women weren't quite so shy of being pictured with
leaders of the coup, including the right wing extremist, Oleh Tyahnybok.
Ashton refused to be drawn into commenting on Nuland's "Fuck the E.U.!" outburst,
describing Nuland as "a friend of mine." The two women certainly weren't strangers, they had
worked closely together before. September 2012 saw them involved in discussions with Iran
negotiator Saeed Jalili over the country's supposed nuclear arms ambitions.
The question is not so much whether the three women talked about Ukraine's future –
it would be ridiculous to think they did not – but how closely they worked together,
and exactly how closely they might have been involved in events leading up to the overthrow
of the legitimate government in Kiev. More on this here:
Another failed "regime change". Aren't these guys (Neoconservatives) great. They fail,
piss off/kill millions, yet seem to keep making money and retaining power. Time to WAKE UP
AMERICA.
Skip Edwards , April 11, 2016 at 20:06
Read "The Devil'Chessboard" by David Talbot to understand what has been occurring as a
result of America's Dark, Shadow government, an un-elected bunch of vicious psychopaths
controlling our destiny; unless stopped. Get a clue and realize that "Yats is our guy"
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton's "gal." Hillary Clinton is Robert Kagen's "gal." Time to
flush all these rats out of the hold and get on with our lives.
Joe L. , April 11, 2016 at 18:40
Mr. Parry thank you for delving into the proven history of coups and the parallels with
Ukraine. It amazes me how anyone can outright deny this was a coup especially if they know
anything about US coups going back to WW2 (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, attempt in
Venezuela 2002 etc. – and there are a whole slew more). I read before, as you have
rightly pointed out, that in 1953 the CIA led a propaganda campaign in Iran against Mossadegh
as well as financing opposition protesters and opposition government officials. Another
angle, as well, is looking historically back to what papers such as the New York Times were
reporting around the time of the coup in Iran – especially when we know that the
US/Britain overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh for their own oil interests
(British Petroleum):
New York Times: "Mossadegh Plays with Fire" (August 15, 1953):
The world has so many trouble spots these days that one is apt to pass over the odd one
here and there to preserve a little peace of mind. It would be well, however, to keep an eye
on Iran, where matters are going from bad to worse, thanks to the machinations of Premier
Mossadegh.
Some of us used to ascribe our inability to persuade Dr. Mossadegh of the validity of our
ideas to the impossibility of making him understand or see things our way. We thought of him
as a sincere, well-meaning, patriotic Iranian, who had a different point of view and made
different deductions from the same set of facts. We now know that he is a power-hungry,
personally ambitious, ruthless demagogue who is trampling upon the liberties of his own
people. We have seen this onetime champion of liberty maintain martial law, curb freedom of
the press, radio, speech and assembly, resort to illegal arrests and torture, dismiss the
Senate, destroy the power of the Shah, take over control of the army, and now he is about to
destroy the Majlis, which is the lower house of Parliament.
His power would seem to be complete, but he has alienated the traditional ruling classes
-the aristocrats, landlords, financiers and tribal leaders. These elements are
anti-Communist. So is the Shah and so are the army leaders and the urban middle classes.
There is a traditional, historic fear, suspicion and dislike of Russia and the Russians. The
peasants, who make up the overwhelming mass of the population, are illiterate and
nonpolitical. Finally, there is still no evidence that the Tudeh (Communist) party is strong
enough or well enough organized, financed and led to take power.
All this simply means that there is no immediate danger of a Communist coup or Russian
intervention. On the other hand, Dr. Mossadegh is encouraging the Tudeh and is following
policies which will make the Communists more and more dangerous. He is a sorcerer's
apprentice, calling up forces he will not be able to control.
Iran is a weak, divided, poverty-stricken country which possesses an immense latent wealth
in oil and a crucial strategic position. This is very different from neighboring Turkey, a
strong, united, determined and advanced nation, which can afford to deal with the Russians
because she has nothing to fear -and therefore the West has nothing to fear. Thanks largely
to Dr. Mossadegh, there is much to fear in Iran.
My feeling is that the biggest sin that our society has is forgetting history. If we
remembered history I would think that it would be very difficult to pull off coups but most
media does not revisit history which proves US coups even against democracies. I actually
think that the coup that occurred in Ukraine was similar to the attempted coup in Venezuela
in 2002 with snipers on rooftops, immediate blame for the deaths on Hugo Chavez where media
manipulated the footage, immediate acceptance of the temporary coup government by the US
Government, immediately offering IMF loans for the new coup government, government positions
for many of the coup plotters, and let us not leave out the funding for the coup coming from
USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy. I also remember seeing the New York Times
immediately blaming Chavez and praising the coup but when the coup was overturned and US
fingerprints started to become revealed (with many of the coup plotters fleeing to the US)
then the New York Times wrote a limited retraction buried in their paper. Shameless.
SFOMARCO , April 11, 2016 at 15:16
How was NED able to finance "scores of projects inside Ukraine training activists,
paying for journalists and organizing business groups", not to mention to host such
dignitaries as Cookie Nuland, Loser McCain and assorted Bidens? Seems like a recipe for a
coup "hidden in plain sight".
Bob Van Noy , April 11, 2016 at 14:36
Ukraine, one would hope, represents the "Bridge Too Far" moment for the proponents of
regime change. Surely Americans must be catching on to what we do for selected nations in the
name of "giving them their freedoms". The Kagan Family, empowered by their newly endorsed
candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, will feel justified in carrying on a new cold war,
this time world wide. Of course they will not be doing the fighting, they, like Dick Cheney
are the self appointed intellects of geopolitical chess, much like The Georgetown Set of the
Kennedy era, they perceive themselves as the only ones smart enough to plan America's
future.
Helen Marshall , April 11, 2016 at 17:11
I wish. How many Americans know ANYTHNG about what has happened in Ukraine, about Crimea
and its history, and/or could even locate them on a map?
Pastor Agnostic , April 12, 2016 at 04:11
Nuland is merely the inhouse, PNAC female version of Sidney Blumenthal. Which raises the
scary question. Who would she pick to be SecState?
"... Given that Guaidó was trained by a group funded by USAID's sister organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) -- and is known to take his marching orders from Washington, including his self-proclamation as "interim president" and his return to Venezuela following the "humanitarian aid" showdown -- it is worth considering that this USAID document may well serve as a roadmap to the upcoming and Guaidó-led "tactical actions" that will comprise "Operation Freedom." ..."
"... Titled "Rapid Expeditionary Development (RED) Teams: Demand and Feasibility Assessment," the 75-page document was produced for the U.S. Global Development Lab, a branch of USAID. It was written as part of an effort to the "widespread sentiment" among the many military, intelligence, and development officials the report's authors interviewed "that the USG [U.S. government] is woefully underperforming in non-permissive and denied environments," including Venezuela. Notably, some of the military, intelligence and development officials interviewed by the report's authors had experience working in a covert capacity in Venezuela. ..."
"... The report goes on to state that "RED Team members would be catalytic actors, performing development activities alongside local communities while coordinating with interagency partners." It further states that "[i]t is envisioned that the priority competency of proposed RED Team development officers would be social movement theory (SMT)" and that "RED Team members would be 'super enablers,' observing situations on the ground and responding immediately by designing, funding, and implementing small-scale activities." ..."
"... Also raising the specter of a Venezuela link is the fact that the document suggests Brazil as a potential location for a RED Team pilot study. Several of those interviewed for the report asserted that "South American countries were ripe for pilots" of the RED Team program, adding that "These [countries were] under-reported, low-profile, idiot-proof locations, where USG civilian access is fairly unrestrained by DS [Diplomatic Security] and where there is a positive American relationship with the host government." ..."
"... This January, Brazil inaugurated Jair Bolsonaro as president, a fascist who has made his intention to align the country close to Washington's interests no secret. During Bolsonaro's recent visit to Washington, he became the first president of that country to visit CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. President Donald Trump said during his meeting with Bolsonaro that "We have a great alliance with Brazil -- better than we've ever had before" and spoke in favor of Brazil joining NATO. ..."
"... This is supported by the troubling correlation between a document produced by the NED-funded group CANVAS and the recent power outages that have taken place throughout Venezuela, which were described as U.S.-led "sabotage" by the country's government. A recent report by The Grayzone detailed how a September 2010 memo by CANVAS -- which trained Juan Guaidó -- described in detail how the potential collapse of the country's electrical infrastructure, like that recently seen in Venezuela, would be "a watershed event" that "would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition group could ever hope to generate." ..."
"... The document specifically named the Simon Bolivar Hydroelectric Plant at Guri Dam, which failed earlier this month as a result of what the Venezuelan government asserted was "sabotage" conducted by the U.S. government. That claim was bolstered by U.S. Senator Marco Rubio's apparent foreknowledge of the power outage. Thus, there is a precedent of correlation between these types of documents and actions that occur in relation to the current U.S. regime-change effort in Venezuela. ..."
With its hands tied when it comes to military intervention, only covert actions - such as those described in the RED Team document
- are likely to be enacted by the U.S. government, at least at this stage of its ongoing "regime change" effort in Venezuela.
Juan Guaidó, the self-proclaimed "interim president of Venezuela" who is supported by the United States government, recently announced
coming "tactical actions" that will be taken by his supporters starting April 6 as part of "
Operation Freedom ," an alleged grassroots effort
to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
That operation, according to Guaidó, will be
led by "Freedom and Aid Committees" that in turn create "freedom cells" throughout the country -- "cells" that will spring to
action when Guaidó gives the signal on April 6 and launch large-scale community protests. Guaidó's stated plan involves the Venezuelan
military then taking his side, but his insistence that "all options are still on the table" (i.e., foreign military intervention)
reveals his impatience with the military, which has continued to stay loyal to Maduro throughout Guaidó's "interim presidency."
However, a document released by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) in February, and highlighted last month in
a report
by Devex, details the creation of networks of small teams, or cells, that would operate in a way very similar to what Guaidó
describes in his plan for "Operation Freedom."
Given that Guaidó
was trained by a group funded by USAID's sister organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) -- and is known to take
his marching orders from Washington, including
his self-proclamation as "interim president" and his return to Venezuela following the "humanitarian aid" showdown -- it is worth
considering that this USAID document may well serve as a roadmap to the upcoming and Guaidó-led "tactical actions" that will comprise
"Operation Freedom."
RED Teams
Titled "Rapid Expeditionary Development (RED) Teams: Demand and Feasibility Assessment," the 75-page
document was produced for the U.S. Global Development Lab,
a branch of USAID. It was written as part of an effort to the "widespread sentiment" among the many military, intelligence, and development
officials the report's authors interviewed "that the USG [U.S. government] is woefully underperforming in non-permissive and denied
environments," including Venezuela. Notably, some of the military, intelligence and development officials interviewed by the report's
authors had experience working in a covert capacity in Venezuela.
The approach put forth in this report involves the creation of rapid expeditionary development (RED) teams, who would "be deployed
as two-person teams and placed with 'non-traditional' USAID partners executing a mix of offensive, defensive, and stability operations
in extremis conditions." The report notes later on that these "non-traditional" partners are U.S. Special Forces (SF) and the CIA.
The report goes on to state that "RED Team members would be catalytic actors, performing development activities alongside local
communities while coordinating with interagency partners." It further states that "[i]t is envisioned that the priority competency
of proposed RED Team development officers would be social movement theory (SMT)" and that "RED Team members would be 'super enablers,'
observing situations on the ground and responding immediately by designing, funding, and implementing small-scale activities."
In other words, these teams of combined intelligence, military and/or "democracy promoting" personnel would work as "super enablers"
of "small-scale activities" focused on "social movement theory" and community mobilizations, such as the mobilizations of protests.
The decentralized nature of RED teams and their focus on engineering "social movements" and "mobilizations" is very similar to
Guaidó's plan for "Operation
Freedom." Operation Freedom is set to begin through "Freedom and Aid committees" that cultivate decentralized "freedom cells" throughout
the country and that create mass mobilizations when Guaidó gives the go ahead on April 6. The ultimate goal of Operation Freedom
is to have those "freedom cell"-generated protests converge on Venezuela's presidential palace, where Nicolás Maduro resides. Given
Guaidó lack of momentum and popularity within Venezuela, it seems highly likely that U.S. government "catalytic actors" may be a
key part of his upcoming plan to topple Maduro in little over a week.
Furthermore, an appendix included in the report states that RED Team members, in addition to being trained in social movement
theory and community mobilization techniques, would also be trained in "weapons handling and use," suggesting that their role as
"catalytic actors" could also involve Maidan-esque behavior. This is a distinct possibility raised by the report's claim that RED
Team members be trained in the use of both "offensive" and "defensive" weaponry.
In addition, another appendix states that RED Team members would help "identify allies and mobilize small amounts of cash to establish
community buy-in/relationship" -- i.e., bribes -- and would particularly benefit the CIA by offering a way to "transition covert
action into community engagement activities."
Feeling Bolsonaro's breath on its neck
Also raising the specter of a Venezuela link is the fact that the document suggests Brazil as a potential location for a RED Team
pilot study. Several of those interviewed for the report asserted that "South American countries were ripe for pilots" of the RED
Team program, adding that "These [countries were] under-reported, low-profile, idiot-proof locations, where USG civilian access is
fairly unrestrained by DS [Diplomatic Security] and where there is a positive American relationship with the host government."
This January, Brazil inaugurated Jair Bolsonaro as president, a fascist who has made his intention to align the country close
to Washington's interests no secret. During Bolsonaro's
recent visit to Washington, he became the first president of that country to visit CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. President
Donald Trump said during his meeting with Bolsonaro that "We have a great alliance with Brazil -- better than we've ever had before"
and spoke in favor of Brazil joining NATO.
Though Bolsonaro's government
has claimed late in February that it would not allow the U.S. to launch a military intervention from its territory, Bolsonaro's
son, Eduardo Bolsonaro -- an adviser to his father and a Brazilian congressman --
said
last week that "use of force will be necessary" in Venezuela "at some point" and, echoing the Trump administration, added that
"all options are on the table." If Bolsonaro's government does allow the "use of force," but not a full-blown foreign military intervention
per se, its closeness to the Trump administration and the CIA suggests that covert actions, such as those carried out by the proposed
RED Teams, are a distinct possibility.
Frontier Design Group
The RED Team report was authored by members of Frontier Design Group (FDG) for USAID's Global Development Lab. FDG is a national
security contractor and its mission statement on its website is quite revealing:
Since our founding, Frontier has focused on the challenges and opportunities that concern the "3Ds" of Defense, Development
and Diplomacy and critical intersections with the intelligence community. Our work has focused on the wicked and sometimes overlapping
problem sets of fragility, violent extremism, terrorism, civil war, and insurgency. Our work on these complex issues has included
projects with the U.S. Departments of State and Defense, USAID, the National Counterterrorism Center and the U.S. Institute of
Peace."
FDG also states on is website that it also regularly does work for the Council on Foreign Relations and the Omidyar Group -- which
is controlled by Pierre Omidyar, a billionaire with deep ties to the U.S. national security establishment that were the subject of
a recent MintPress series. According to journalist Tim Shorrock, who mentions the document in
a recent investigation
focusing on Pierre Omidyar for Washington Babylon , FDG was the "sole contractor" hired by USAID to create a "new counterinsurgency
doctrine for the Trump administration" and the fruit of that effort is the "RED Team" document described above.
One of the co-authors of the document is
Alexa Courtney , FDG founder
and former USAID liaison officer with the Department of Defense; former manager of civilian counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan
for USAID; and former counterinsurgency specialist for U.S. intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.
In addition, according to Shorrock, Courtney's name has also been found "on several Caerus [Associates] contracts with USAID and
US intelligence that were leaked to me on a thumb drive, including a $77 million USAID project to track 'licit and illicit networks'
in Honduras." Courtney, according to
her LinkedIn account, was also
recently honored by Chevron Corporation for her "demonstrated leadership and impact on development results." MintPress
recently reported
on the role of Chevron in the current U.S.-led effort to topple Maduro and replace him with Guaidó.
Send in the USAID
Though Devex was told last month that USAID was "still working on the details in formulating the Rapid Expeditionary Development
(RED) Teams initiative," Courtney
stated
that the report's contents had been "received really favorably" by "very senior" and "influential" former and current government
officials she had interviewed during the creation of the document.
For instance, one respondent asserted that the RED Team system would "restore the long-lost doing capacity of USAID." Another
USAID official with 15 years of experience, including in "extremely denied environments," stated that:
We have to be involved in national security or USAID will not be relevant. Anybody who doesn't think we need to be working
in combat elements or working with SF [special forces] groups is just naïve. We are either going to be up front or irrelevant
USAID is going through a lot right now, but this is an area where we can be of utility. It must happen."
Given that the document represents the efforts of the sole contractor tasked with developing the current administration's new
counterterrorism strategy, there is plenty of reason to believe that its contents -- published for over a year -- have been or are
set to be put to use in Venezuela, potentially as part of the upcoming "Operation Freedom," set to begin on April 6.
This is supported by the troubling correlation between a document produced by the NED-funded group CANVAS and the recent power
outages that have taken place throughout Venezuela, which were described as U.S.-led "sabotage" by the country's government. A
recent report by The Grayzone detailed how a September 2010 memo by CANVAS -- which trained Juan Guaidó -- described in detail
how the potential collapse of the country's electrical infrastructure, like that recently seen in Venezuela, would be "a watershed
event" that "would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition group could ever hope to generate."
The document specifically named the Simon Bolivar Hydroelectric Plant at Guri Dam, which failed earlier this month as a result
of what the Venezuelan government asserted was "sabotage" conducted by the U.S. government. That claim was bolstered by U.S. Senator
Marco Rubio's apparent foreknowledge of the power outage. Thus, there is a precedent of correlation between these types of documents
and actions that occur in relation to the current U.S. regime-change effort in Venezuela.
Furthermore, it would make sense for the Trump administration to attempt to enact such an initiative as that described in the
document, given its apparent inability to launch a military intervention in Venezuela, despite its frequent claims that "all options
are on the table." Indeed, U.S. allies -- including those close to Venezuela, like Colombia --
have rejected military intervention, given the U.S.' past role in bloody coups and civil wars throughout the region.
Thus, with its hands tied when it comes to military intervention, only covert actions -- such as those described in the RED Team
document -- are likely to be enacted by the U.S. government, at least at this stage of its ongoing "regime change" effort in Venezuela.
They lost control of Saudi Arabia, after trying to take down MBS and then betraying him by unexpectedly allowing waivers on
Iranian oil in November.
The U.S. cannot take down Iran without Venezuelan oil. What is worse, right now they don't have access to enough heavy oil
to meet their own needs.
Controlling the world oil trade is central to Trump's strategy for the U.S. to continue its empire. Without Venezuelan oil,
the U.S. is a bit player in the energy markets, and will remain so.
Having Russia block the U.S. in Venezuela adds insult to injury. After Crimea and Syria, now Venezuela, Russia exposes the
U.S. as a loud mouthed-bully without the capacity to back up its threats, a 'toothless tiger', an 'emperor without clothes'.
If the U.S. cannot dislodge Russia from Venezuela, its days as 'global hegemon' are finished. For this reason the U.S. will
continue escalating the situation with ever-riskier actions, until it succeeds or breaks.
In the same manor, if Russia backs off, its resistance to the U.S. is finished. And the U.S. will eventually move to destroy
Russia, like it has been actively trying to do for the past 30 years. Russia cannot and will not back off.
Venezuela thus becomes the stage where the final act in the clash of empires plays out. Will the world become a multi-polar
world, in which the U.S. becomes a relatively isolated and insignificant pole? Or will the world become more fully dominated by
a brutal, erratic hegemon?
"... Trump's "opposition" in the Democratic Party is no less hostile to democratic rights. They have focused their anti-Trump campaign on bogus allegations that he is a Russian agent, while portraying the emergence of social divisions within the United States as the consequence of Russian "meddling," not the crisis of capitalism, and pushing for across-the-board internet censorship. ..."
"The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its pleasures, is nothing
but the rebirth of the lumpenproletariat on the heights of bourgeois society ." -- Karl
Marx, The Class Struggles in France
What Marx described, in his analysis of the corruption of the bourgeoisie in France
leading up to the 1848 revolution, applies with even greater force to the United States of
2019, where the bourgeoisie faces its own rendezvous with social upheaval and explosive class
battles.
That is how a Marxist understands the spectacle of Wednesday's hearing before the House
Oversight Committee, in which Michael Cohen, the former attorney and "fixer" for Donald Trump
for more than a decade, testified for six hours about how he and his boss worked to defraud
business partners and tax collectors, intimidate critics and suppress opposition to Trump's
acitvities in real estate, casino gambling, reality television and, eventually, electoral
politics.
What Cohen described was a seedier version of an operation that most Americans would
recognize from viewing films like The Godfather: Trump as the capo di tutti capi, the
unquestioned authority who must be consulted on every decision ; the children, Donald Jr.,
Ivanka and Eric, each now playing significant roles in the ongoing family criminal enterprise;
Allen Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization, the consigliere in charge of finance,
mentioned by Cohen more than 20 times in the course of six hours of testimony as the man who
facilitated Trump's schemes to evade taxes, deceive banks or stiff business partners.
Cohen himself was an enforcer. By his own account, he threatened people on Trump's behalf at
least 500 times in a ten-year period, including business associates, politicians, journalists
and anyone seeking to file complaints or gain reimbursement after being defrauded by one or
another Trump venture. The now-disbarred lawyer admitted to tape recording clients -- including
Trump among many others -- more than 100 times during this period.
The incidents recounted by Cohen range from the farcical (Trump browbeating colleges and
even his military prep school not to release his grades or test scores), to the shabby (Trump
having his own "charitable" foundation buy a portrait of himself for $60,000), to the brazenly
criminal (deliberately inflating the value of properties when applying for bank loans while
deflating the value of the same properties as much as twenty-fold in order to evade
taxation).
One of the most remarkable revelations was Cohen's flat assertion that Trump himself did
not enter the presidential race with the expectation that he could win either the Republican
nomination or the presidency. Instead, the billionaire reality television "star" regularly told
his closest aides, the campaign would be the "greatest infomercial in political history," good
for promoting his brand and opening up business opportunities in previously closed
markets.
These unflattering details filled the pages of the daily newspapers Thursday and occupied
many hours on the cable television news. But in all that vast volume of reporting and
commentary, one would look in vain for any serious assessment of what it means, in terms of the
historical development and future trajectory of American society, that a family like the Trumps
now occupies the highest rung in the US political system.
The World Socialist Web Site rejects efforts by the Democrats and the corporate media
to dismiss Trump as an aberration, an accidental figure whose unexpected elevation to the
presidency in 2016 will be "corrected" through impeachment, forced resignation or electoral
defeat in 2020. We insist that the Trump administration is a manifestation of a protracted
crisis and breakdown of American democracy, whose course can be traced back at least two
decades to the failed impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998-99, followed by the stolen
presidential election of 2000.
The US political system, always dominated by the interests of the capitalist ruling class
that controls both of the major parties, the Democrats as much as the Republicans, is breaking
down under the burden of mounting social tensions, driven above all by skyrocketing economic
inequality. It is impossible to sustain the pretense that elections at two-year and four-year
intervals provide genuine popular influence over the functioning of a government so completely
subordinated to the financial aristocracy.
The figures are familiar but require restating: over the past three decades, virtually all
the increase in wealth in American society has gone to a tiny layer at the top. Three
mega-billionaires -- Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates -- now control more wealth than
half the American population. This process of social polarization is global: according to the
most recent Oxfam report, 26 billionaires control more wealth than the poorer half of the human
race.
These billionaires did not accumulate their riches by devising new technologies or making
new scientific discoveries that increased the wealth and happiness of humanity as a whole. On
the contrary, their enrichment has come at the expense of society. Bezos has become the world's
richest man through the emergence of Amazon as the greatest sweatshop enterprise in history,
where every possible second of labor power is extracted from a brutally exploited
workforce.
The class of billionaires as a whole, having precipitated the global financial collapse of
2008 through reckless speculation and swindling in the sale of derivatives and other obscure
financial "products," was bailed out, first by the Republican Bush, then by the Democrat Obama,
to the tune of trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, the jobs, living standards and social
conditions for the great mass of working people sharply declined.
As for Donald Trump, the real estate swindler, casino con man and reality television mogul
is a living demonstration of the truth of Balzac's aphorism: "Behind every great fortune is a
great crime."
Trump toyed with running for president on the ultra-right Reform Party ticket in 2000 after
a long stint as a registered Democrat and donor to both capitalist parties. When he decided to
run for president as a Republican in 2016, however, he had shifted drastically to the right.
His candidacy marked the emergence of a distinctly fascistic movement, as he spewed
anti-immigrant prejudice and racism more generally, while making a right-wing populist appeal
to working people, particularly in de-industrialized areas in the Midwest and Appalachia, on
the basis of economic nationalism.
As World Socialist Web Site editorial board Chairman David North explained even
before the 2016 elections:
The Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States did not emerge from an
American version of a Munich beer hall. Donald Trump is a billionaire, who made his money in
Manhattan real estate swindles, the semi-criminal operations of casino gambling, and the
bizarre world of "reality television," which entertains and stupefies its audience by
manufacturing absurd, disgusting and essentially fictional "real life" situations. The
candidacy of Donald Trump could be described as the transfer of the techniques of reality
television to politics.
The main development in the two years since Trump entered the White House is the emergence
of the American working class into major struggles, beginning with the wave of teachers'
strikes in 2018, initiated by the rank and file in defiance of the bureaucratic unions. The
reaction in the American ruling elite is a panic-stricken turn to authoritarian methods of
rule.
The billionaire in the White House is now engaged in a systematic assault on the foundations
of American democracy. He has declared a national emergency in order to bypass Congress, which
holds the constitutional "power of the purse," and divert funds from the military and other
federal departments to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.
Whether or not he is immediately successful in this effort, it is clear that Trump is
moving towards the establishment of an authoritarian regime, with or without the sanction of
the ballot box. As Cohen observed in his closing statement -- in remarks generally downplayed
by the media and ignored by the Democrats -- he is worried that if Trump loses the 2020
election, "there will never be a peaceful transition of power."
Trump's "opposition" in the Democratic Party is no less hostile to democratic rights. They
have focused their anti-Trump campaign on bogus allegations that he is a Russian agent, while
portraying the emergence of social divisions within the United States as the consequence of
Russian "meddling," not the crisis of capitalism, and pushing for across-the-board internet
censorship.
The defense of democratic rights and genuine resistance to Trump's drive toward
authoritarian rule must come through the development of an independent political movement of
the working class, directed against both big business parties, the Democrats as much as the
Republicans, and against the profit system which they both defend.
"... Maduro might not possess widespread legitimacy, but his government retains control of much of the state apparatus and remains far more entrenched than many opposition members and their supporters would like to believe. ..."
"... Nearly every day over the past two weeks, both National Security Adviser John Bolton and Republican Senator Marco Rubio have used their Twitter accounts to call on the military to align with Guaidó, "defend democracy," and oust Maduro. ..."
"... Guaidó's announcement assuming the role of interim president generated a wave of support from some capitals as well as the Organization of American States. Now the crisis is in a stalemate. Indeed, as Francisco Toro notes , the United States, in granting diplomatic recognition to Guaidó's "government," has created a precarious situation by confusing a normative judgment about who should run the country with the objective fact of who does run the country -- that is, who actually has control over national territory and the state apparatus. ..."
"... If this gamble, this all-or-nothing approach, does not go as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, NSA adviser Bolton, and others hope it will, what will happen in a few weeks, if Maduro remains president? Will Washington continue with economic sanctions and fall into a pattern similar to its decades-long standoff with Cuba? Will it take to exploding cigars and other absurd and criminal plots of subversion? ..."
"... The United States now has little room to play a constructive role in interim efforts, such as the negotiations proposed by Mexico and Uruguay to bring the two sides to the table ..."
"... In fact, Guaidó is from one of the most hard-line political parties among the opposition. ..."
"... More than anything else, Guaidó appears to be a product of the right-wing, middle-class student movement that developed in opposition to the Chávez government in the mid-to-late 2000s. This movement, which took to the streets of Caracas to demand the ouster of Chávez, received much of its funding and training from Washington ..."
"... Over the course of several years, Washington worked with middle-class, opposition-aligned students through the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and its Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI). Indeed, OTI often works in war-torn countries that are, as the office's name indicates, experiencing a "political transition," such as Burma, Iraq, and Libya. When Gill asked a former high-ranking USAID member why OTI worked in Venezuela, he stated that OTI are "the special forces of the democracy assistance community." Another USAID functionary told Gill that OTI allowed the United States to provide funds to opposition members in Venezuela faster than if they used traditional channels. ..."
"... What were the ultimate objectives of USAID/OTI in Venezuela during the years they worked with the student movement? US Ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield specifically laid them out in a secret embassy cable secured by Chelsea Manning and released by WikiLeaks: "1) Strengthening Democratic Institutions, 2) Penetrating Chavez' Political Base, 3) Dividing Chavismo, 4) Protecting Vital US business, and 5) Isolating Chavez internationally." ..."
"... Thereafter, USAID/OTI largely shifted its efforts toward the burgeoning student movement that developed in the mid-2000s -- the movement in which Guaidó "cut his political teeth," according to a report in The Guardian . A former USAID/OTI member who helped devise US efforts in Venezuela said the "objective was that you had thousands of youth, high school, and college kids that were horrified of this Indian-looking guy in power. They were idealistic. We wanted to help them to build a civic organization, so that they could mobilize and organize. This is different than protesting." In other words, USAID/OTI sought to take advantage of racialized fear of Chávez to organize middle-class youth around a long-term strategy to defeat him. ..."
"... most successful time was during 2007, when the student movement developed. The US had a very daring movement and brought a lot of money to the students through OTI, and it grew a lot as a result ..."
"... Although they could not confirm the specific US origins of this assistance, this sort of aid has been used for CIA operations in the past. ..."
"... While it is unclear what Guaidó's role was in these groups at the time, it is clear that US "democracy promotion" financed his cohort's formation and its demonstrations for over a decade . ..."
"... This is not to suggest that Guaidó, Goicoechea, or any other opposition member is merely a puppet of the United States. But it is clear that Guaidó and others in his circle share a worldview and certain goals with the US government. Many of them linked up with US agencies, which provided them with the resources needed to amplify their voices and reach a much larger audience. ..."
"... A recently released document outlining some of Guaidó's proposals -- accepting much-needed humanitarian aid, eliminating currency controls, and courting private investment -- did little to clarify his vision for the future. Still hanging in the air is how Guaidó intends to accomplish these goals. The lack of specificity is at least partly due to the heterogeneity of the opposition coalition, which is composed of former Communist Party members as well as proponents of neoliberalism. But Guaidó's already cozy relationship with the United States certainly raises concerns that his plans remain vague because they involve massive privatization, the rollback of state services, and other policies that would make Venezuela more "inviting" for foreign investors at the expense of many Venezuelans ..."
"... Finally, though most Venezuelans may not be aware of the ties between Guaidó's party and the United States, his uncritical acceptance of US support has filled some with uncertainty about his motives. ..."
"... At the international level, the stars have surely aligned for Guaidó and the opposition, with right-wing allies like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Donald Trump in the United States now in power. ..."
"... The only real hope for a peaceful outcome lies in dialogue. Given that many citizens do not trust either Maduro or Guaidó, the two sides would need to make serious gestures toward working together to resolve both the economic and political crisis. This would require that Guaidó walk back his refusal to participate in negotiations. ..."
"... Decoupling humanitarian aid from political interests could also demonstrate that Guaidó isn't just focused on gaining power. The Red Cross has already cautioned the United States about the dangers of sending aid to Venezuela if it is not "shielded" from politics and does not have the approval of Venezuelan authorities. ..."
in February 4, more than a dozen European countries recognized the president of Venezuela's National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, as
the country's legitimate president. This decision came almost two weeks after the United States, Canada, and most countries in Latin
America backed Guaidó's claim to the presidential office. Despite continued Chinese and Russian support for Nicolás Maduro's government,
the international community is quickly isolating it, as never before. A strange coalition of left- and right-wing political parties
has formed to assist Guaidó, and knee-jerk support from both pundits and politicians who profess concern about the country's humanitarian
crisis has generated an allegiance to this little-known politician and his call for Maduro's resignation. Many of Guaidó's supporters
have cited Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution as grounds for his assumption of the presidency, arguing that the unfair nature
of the 2018 presidential election has rendered the Maduro government illegitimate. There is no question that Venezuelans are suffering
and want to see a change in governance. Maduro is wildly unpopular, even among the working class, and many have grown tired of the
economic crisis that has exploded under his watch. This doesn't mean, though, that citizens necessarily support the opposition or,
worse, US military intervention.
Many continue to identify as chavista , and even those who have shed this identification continue to acknowledge that the
Bolivarian Revolution once improved their livelihoods. Those improvements, though, have largely evaporated under Maduro.
Since some of the most powerful countries in the world have now decided to back Guaidó, there is good reason to ask who he is,
what sort of future he represents for Venezuela, and whether domestic support for Guaidó's call for Maduro's resignation equals support
for him as leader of the country.
Dangerous Brinkmanship
Maduro might not possess widespread legitimacy, but his government retains control of much of the state apparatus and remains
far more entrenched than many opposition members and their supporters would like to believe. In many ways, chavismo remains
dominant and has reshaped Venezuelan society. Whether they like it or not, the opposition will not be able to entirely overturn the
legacy of the Bolivarian Revolution or erase the fondness that many citizens still have for the late Hugo Chávez and the policies
he implemented as president. Some members of the opposition
seem to realize this.
There should not be any doubt, though, about what the United States, alongside other countries within and beyond the Western Hemisphere,
are pushing for in Venezuela: a military overthrow of the Maduro government. The situation is messy, and there are multiple interpretations
concerning the origins of the political-economic crisis in Venezuela, as well as how to solve the political crisis and reboot the
Venezuelan economy. But Washington and its allies seem intent on some basic interventionist strategies. Nearly every day over
the past two weeks, both National Security Adviser John Bolton and Republican Senator Marco Rubio have used their Twitter accounts
to call on the military to align with Guaidó, "defend democracy," and oust Maduro.
For now, the United States has seemed to settle for imposing harsh sanctions on Venezuela that portend economic catastrophe. These
sanctions target the lifeblood of the economy: the state oil company (PDVSA) and its sales to the United States. The aim, of course,
is to weaken Maduro's position by taking away the government's most important source of revenue. But this could very easily backfire.
Venezuelan citizens might blame the United States for worsening the economic crisis, though it won't automatically translate into
support for Maduro. And it certainly won't help build support for international mediation or fondness for the United States on the
part of most Venezuelans.
If these sanctions do break the government, it is likely some portion of the population will feel that whatever comes next is
the product of coercion. If the opposition centered around Guaidó then wins a presidential election, that government may face questions
regarding its own legitimacy. Even for many who do not support Maduro, anti-imperialist sentiments run deep; elections that take
place as a result of US strong-arming will be tainted by these dynamics.
Guaidó's announcement assuming the role of interim president generated a wave of support from some capitals as well as the
Organization of American States. Now the crisis is in a stalemate. Indeed,
as Francisco Toro notes
, the United States, in granting diplomatic recognition to Guaidó's "government," has created a precarious situation by confusing
a normative judgment about who should run the country with the objective fact of who does run the country -- that is, who actually
has control over national territory and the state apparatus.
If this gamble, this all-or-nothing approach, does not go as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, NSA adviser Bolton, and others
hope it will, what will happen in a few weeks, if Maduro remains president? Will Washington continue with economic sanctions and
fall into a pattern similar to its decades-long standoff with Cuba? Will it take to exploding cigars and other absurd and criminal
plots of subversion?
The United States now has little room to play a constructive role in interim efforts, such as the negotiations proposed by
Mexico and Uruguay to bring the two sides to the table.In fact, Washington's intransigence only bolsters opposition
intransigence. Indeed, since January 23, we have seen escalation upon escalation, potentially setting the stage for violent conflict,
even civil war.
Washington's Campaign: 'Dividing Chavismo' and 'Protecting Vital US Business'
Following the opposition's victory in 2015 parliamentary elections, opposition-party leaders agreed to a rotating cast of leadership
within the National Assembly. In 2019, Guaidó, representing the Voluntad Popular party, assumed the position of National Assembly
president. Very few know much about the 35-year-old Guaidó. Indeed, a common remark about him from Venezuelans is that he has "come
out of nowhere" ( viene de la nada ).
In fact, Guaidó is from one of the most hard-line political parties among the opposition. While some parties have sought
to displace chavismo through an electoral route, Leopoldo López, one of the founders of Voluntad Popular, led protests in 2014 --
many of which became violent -- demanding Maduro's exit. After Maduro's first election, in 2013, López justified undemocratic approaches
to removing him by declaring his government illegitimate. One of the few things we do know about Guaidó is that López has been one
of his political mentors; some have even suggested López is continuing to call the shots while still under house arrest in suburban
Caracas.
More than anything else, Guaidó appears to be a product of the right-wing, middle-class student movement that developed in
opposition to the Chávez government in the mid-to-late 2000s. This movement, which took to the streets of Caracas to demand the ouster
of Chávez, received much of its funding and training from Washington.
The following reporting is based on Tim Gill's extensive research on US foreign policy toward Venezuela under Chávez, and the
ways in which Washington sought to"promote democracy." Gill conducted interviews with numerous US state actors and members Venezuelan
civil society.
Over the course of several years, Washington worked with middle-class, opposition-aligned students through the US Agency for
International Development (USAID) and its Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI). Indeed, OTI often
works in war-torn countries that
are, as the office's name indicates, experiencing a "political transition," such as Burma, Iraq, and Libya. When Gill asked a former
high-ranking USAID member why OTI worked in Venezuela, he stated that OTI are "the special forces of the democracy assistance community."
Another USAID functionary told Gill that OTI allowed the United States to provide funds to opposition members in Venezuela faster
than if they used traditional channels.
What were the ultimate objectives of USAID/OTI in Venezuela during the years they worked with the student movement? US Ambassador
to Venezuela William Brownfield specifically laid
them out in a secret embassy cable secured by Chelsea Manning and released by WikiLeaks: "1) Strengthening Democratic Institutions,
2) Penetrating Chavez' Political Base, 3) Dividing Chavismo, 4) Protecting Vital US business, and 5) Isolating Chavez internationally."
These efforts initially focused on setting up community groups in working-class neighborhoods, which appeared neutral but were
actually operated by opposition activists. Since USAID/OTI could not directly fund political parties, they worked with party leaders,
including those from Voluntad Popular, to help opposition activists set up these community groups in neighborhoods where chavistas
were predominant. The groups, which claimed to promote and provide training related to participatory democracy, ultimately aimed
to put opposition activists in contact with Chávez supporters in an effort to generate chavista support for their political
parties. One USAID/OTI contractor who helped to organize these groups in Venezuela explained to Gill:
We even developed new NGOs that were looking very neutral in the eyes of the government; by them we can help people in the
poor neighborhoods. They looked neutral because they had no affiliation with no political party. They were people from the neighborhood,
even though they were opposition. They create the organizations with no past relation to political parties. So when they worked
in the barrios , they looked very neutral. So we gave them money, but they succeeded in helping democratic values. They
were pulling people away from Chávez in a subtle manner. We were telling them what democracy is, and showing them what democracy
means. We developed very nice materials and took care of every word to give them, so it didn't look like we were sympathizing
with the opposition.
The campaign didn't work out as planned. Chávez continued to garner support among the popular classes, and many barrio
inhabitants eventually caught on that the community groups were organized by the opposition, so most stopped attending.
Thereafter, USAID/OTI largely shifted its efforts toward the burgeoning student movement that developed in the mid-2000s --
the movement in which Guaidó "cut his political teeth," according to
a report in The Guardian . A former USAID/OTI member who helped devise US efforts in Venezuela said the "objective was that you
had thousands of youth, high school, and college kids that were horrified of this Indian-looking guy in power. They were idealistic.
We wanted to help them to build a civic organization, so that they could mobilize and organize. This is different than protesting."
In other words, USAID/OTI sought to take advantage of racialized fear of Chávez to organize middle-class youth around a long-term
strategy to defeat him.
How exactly did the United States help these students? One USAID/OTI contractor who worked directly with them on a routine basis
revealed to Gill that Washington provided funding and training to the student groups that developed at the same time Guaidó was part
of them. This contractor said that for USAID/OTI, the
most successful time was during 2007, when the student movement developed. The US had a very daring movement and brought
a lot of money to the students through OTI, and it grew a lot as a result. I can say with pride that a lot of people
[now] in the Congress -- I know them from our projects. I'm proud. It's like you see your son and daughter grow up. I knew them
when they grew up the potential leaders when/if there is a change of government, and we were the ones who showed them the first
steps.
Washington gave money to these student groups for a number of purposes. As one USAID/OTI employee put it, the funding was for
"all the things they needed: microphones, things for presentations, paper." Another USAID/OTI employee described hosting seminars
and courses with student protesters. One employee described the training this way: "what is democracy, what is the vote, all the
pillars with the democracy system, to reinforce them, what language they have to use." However, one USAID worker contended that Washington
-- albeit not through USAID -- was also providing the students with items that could "be used in the street and protect themselves,
[such as] masks, but it was not part of open grants." Although they could not confirm the specific US origins of this assistance,
this sort of aid has been used for CIA operations in the past.
While it is unclear what Guaidó's role was in these groups at the time, it is clear that US "democracy promotion" financed
his cohort's formation and its demonstrations for over a decade . Two of the key actors that USAID/OTI contractors interacted
with during this period were Yon Goicoechea and Freddy Guevara, who like Guaidó were from Voluntad Popular. All three have been widely
documented in the media as leading student protests against the Chávez government at the same time, putting them in the same organizational
circles.
This is not to suggest that Guaidó, Goicoechea, or any other opposition member is merely a puppet of the United States. But
it is clear that Guaidó and others in his circle share a worldview and certain goals with the US government. Many of them linked
up with US agencies, which provided them with the resources needed to amplify their voices and reach a much larger audience.When Gill asked one USAID/OTI member whether the goal was "to get Chávez out of office," the member responded, "That was the
idea."
What Does Guaidó Want?
Fast-forward to 2019, when Guaidó is at the forefront of the movement to oust Maduro. As with much of the Venezuelan opposition,
though, Guaidó has been vague about his actual policies. On January 30, he presented a "Plan País" at the Central University of Venezuela.
But much of this time was spent criticizing what the government has done and talking in generalities about how Guaidó would improve
the economy. This included vague references to "stabilizing the economy" and "establishing legal certainty for business."
A recently released document outlining some of Guaidó's proposals -- accepting much-needed humanitarian aid, eliminating currency
controls, and courting private investment -- did little to clarify his vision for the future. Still hanging in the air is how Guaidó
intends to accomplish these goals. The lack of specificity is at least partly due to the heterogeneity of the opposition coalition,
which is composed of former Communist Party members as well as proponents of neoliberalism. But Guaidó's already cozy relationship
with the United States certainly raises concerns that his plans remain vague because they involve massive privatization, the rollback
of state services, and other policies that would make Venezuela more "inviting" for foreign investors at the expense of many Venezuelans.
According to a glowing
recent article in The New York Times , "While it's still far from certain that Mr. Guaidó will ever set foot in the presidential
palace, the number of ordinary Venezuelans and foreign powers taking his side is growing." This formulation confuses provisional
support for Guaidó as a means of clearing the way for elections with support for Guaidó as president -- a dangerous conflation to
make in a country where it could take up to one or two years to organize elections. And so far, we still don't know what Guaidó is
more committed to: putting his friends and party members into power, or supporting democratic elections, regardless of the outcome.
The only thing we know for sure is that in the short term, he wishes to fully assume the presidency.
Guaidó's intransigent opposition to negotiations is perhaps another reason to question his motives. Undoubtedly, previous talks
have not generated confidence or optimism on either side. In lockstep with the United States and several other countries, Guaidó
has asserted that the time for dialogue is over. This position seems to have only encouraged Maduro to dig in his heels.
It's unlikely the Maduro government will simply calmly step aside and cede the government to Guaidó. High-ranking military members
seemingly remain on board with Maduro -- maybe because they fear an end to the economic benefits they now receive, or even prosecution
under an opposition government. The opposition, for its part, is working to provide an exit ramp for military officers tangled up
with the Maduro government. Given this standstill, Guaidó's resistance to dialogue only moves the needle closer to US military intervention.
And his embrace of economic sanctions will hammer the poor before anyone else.
Guaidó's calls for more protests and military defections, and his actions at the international level (for example, his rush to
appoint ambassadors to sympathetic countries) seem designed to bait Maduro into pursuing him legally. Bolton et al. have publicly
warned Maduro that actions against Guaidó will have consequences. Clearly, the Iraq War–endorsing national-security adviser and his
new colleague -- the
notorious neocon Elliott Abrams, Trump's recently appointed special envoy to Venezuela -- are eager to assert US political and
military dominance over a neighboring country that has irritated Washington for two decades.
Guaidó's Shaky Support
Over the past few years, discontent with the Maduro government has clearly grown, but we should not conflate that growth in opposition
with support for Guaidó. For years, the opposition coalition has asserted that it represents a majority of the country, even as it
has ignored the poor and working class. The fact that Guaidó's mobilizations in Caracas on February 2 were centered in Las Mercedes,
one of the richest neighborhoods, does not generate confidence that the opposition has moved beyond its narrow, elitist base. In
late January Rebecca Hanson conducted research in Catia, a conglomeration of poor and working-class neighborhoods in west Caracas
where she has worked since 2009, on perceptions of the self-proclaimed interim president. She found that even those who voice support
for Guaidó do so because he is not Maduro -- that is, they support him not for who he is, but for who he isn't. At most, there may
be tentative agreement that Guaidó represents una esperanza (a hope) for a change in government.
It was not excitement about potential change but rather pessimism and hopelessness that characterized one group interview that
Hanson organized with women in Los Magallanes, a section of Catia, only 10 days after Guaidó's proclamation. Though the women participating
said that Guaidó offered some hope, this was limited to getting Maduro out of office. Most of them felt that there is no real difference
between Maduro and Guaidó, with one fighting to maintain his position in power and the other fighting to seize it. As one participant
in the interview put it, the two are in a fight to distribute the spoils of war among their respective inner circle. "You don't know
who to believe"; "I don't believe in anyone"; and "All politicians want the same thing" were common refrains.
What is more, no one Hanson interviewed was under the illusion that the opposition under Guaidó was different from when it was
under López or Henrique Capriles, the opposition's 2012 and 2013 presidential candidate. In other words, no one was convinced that
Guaidó had the interests of the people at heart. These and other conversations suggest that at least some Venezuelans will support
Guaidó only, or at least primarily, because they feel they have been backed into a corner, either by Maduro's incompetence or his
unwillingness to make serious economic changes.
Finally, though most Venezuelans may not be aware of the ties between Guaidó's party and the United States, his uncritical
acceptance of US support has filled some with uncertainty about his motives.Some would prefer that he "put his house
in order" without outside intervention -- that he demonstrate his ability to generate support within Venezuela. For others, his very
public endorsement of the United States recalls memories of Venezuela's status decades ago, during the cuarta republica ,
when "our oil was not our own," as chavistas that Hanson has conducted research with often say. Still others worry that Venezuela
is being sold off bit by bit to Russia and China. The choice between Guaidó and Maduro could, sadly, end up being a question of which
empire to serve.
No Peace Without Chavismo
At the international level, the stars have surely aligned for Guaidó and the opposition, with right-wing allies like Jair
Bolsonaro in Brazil and Donald Trump in the United States now in power. Yet the Venezuelan government has fended off international
intervention before. Hugo Chávez survived Bush and his overt support for the 2002 coup (as well as former Colombian President Alvaro
Uribe and his saber rattling). However, in earlier years, the so-called Latin American Pink Tide, with leftist governments in countries
like Ecuador and Brazil, gave Venezuela firm regional allies. This is no longer the case.
True, Maduro does retain the support of China and Russia. Over the past decade they have supplied Venezuela with shipments of
missiles, advanced aircraft, and tanks, which have shored up a sizable military. This could make a US invasion more complicated than
what the Pentagon faced in Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989, two military forays that Trump and others often reference in defense
of this possibility.
The only real hope for a peaceful outcome lies in dialogue. Given that many citizens do not trust either Maduro or Guaidó,
the two sides would need to make serious gestures toward working together to resolve both the economic and political crisis. This
would require that Guaidó walk back his refusal to participate in negotiations. A few global actors like Mexico and Uruguay
understand this and have urged the government and opposition to sit down and work out a plan for the future.
Dialogue is a much better option than the current US plan to starve Venezuelans into revolt by applying crippling economic sanctions.
Have US elites learned nothing from the experience of Cuba, Iran, or Zimbabwe? These economies limped on, and their leaders clung
to state power for decades, despite sanctions. Far from damaging US foes, sanctions have primarily taken their toll on the citizens
they were allegedly designed to liberate.
Guaidó could invest less time in courting international actors and more time winning over sectors in Venezuela that have traditionally
supported chavismo . For example, he could take a page from the playbook of Henrique Capriles, who announced during his 2012
presidential campaign that social programs like Barrio Adentro, which provided free health care in popular sectors, should not only
be maintained but improved and extended. Although Guaidó has criticized militarized police raids that have killed hundreds in poor
neighborhoods, the Guaidó-led opposition has remained silent about how their government would protect the rights and well-being of
the poor, suggesting that it has yet to concede that these sectors, the majority of the population, must be the priority of any future
government. Given the high level of discontent with the Maduro government, this is a luxury he can probably afford -- in the short
term. Eventually, however, he will need to put forward a platform demonstrating that the poor and working-class sectors will not
end up bearing the brunt of the transition if he wishes to secure their support.
Decoupling humanitarian aid from political interests could also demonstrate that Guaidó isn't just focused on gaining power.
The Red Cross has already cautioned the United
States about the dangers of sending aid to Venezuela if it is not "shielded" from politics and does not have the approval of Venezuelan
authorities. Humanitarian aid should not be a bargaining chip, and using it as such contributes to the perception that the battle
Guaidó is waging is for power, not el pueblo . Finally, and not least, Guaidó should put forward a concrete plan for new elections,
guaranteeing the participation of chavista candidates. There is no political future in Venezuela without chavista participation,
and, one way or another, the opposition and chavismo will eventually need to work together toward a new future. See also
"... This reminds me of the gerontocrats of the Soviet Politburo in the worst stagnation years who had to appoint the likes of Chernenko to top positions. ..."
"... The one thing the Mr MAGA's administration has in common with the late Brezhevian Politburo is its total inability to get anything done. My wife refers to the folks in the White House (since Dubya came to power) as the " gang that couldn't shoot straight " and she is right (she always is!): they just can't really get anything done anymore – all their half-assed pseudo-successes are inevitably followed by embarrassing failures. ..."
Remember the almost universal reaction of horror when Bolton was appointed as National
Security Advisor? Well, apparently, either the Neocons completely missed that, which I doubt,
or they did what they always do and decided to double-down by retrieving Elliott Abrams from
storage and appointing him US Special Envoy to Venezuela. I mean, yes, of course, the Neocons
are stupid and sociopathic enough not to ever care about others, but in this case I think that
we are dealing with a "Skripal tactic": do something so ridiculously stupid and offensive that
it places all your vassals before a stark choice: either submit and pretend like you did not
notice or, alternatively, dare to say something and face with wrath of Uncle Shmuel (the
Neocon's version of Uncle Sam).
And it worked, in the name of "solidarity" or whatever else, the most faithful lackeys of
the Empire immediate fell in line behind the latest US aggression against a sovereign nation in
spite of the self-evident fact that this aggression violates every letter of the most sacred
principles of international law. This is exactly the same tactic as when they make you clean
toilets with a toothbrush or do push-ups in the mud during basic training: not only to
condition you to total obedience, but to make you publicly give up any semblance of
dignity.
...Finally, these appointments also show that the senior-Neocons are frightened and paranoid
as there are still plenty of very sharp junior-Neocon folks to chose from in the US, yet they
felt the need to get Abrams from conservation and place him in a key position in spite of the
strong smell of naphthalene emanating from him. This reminds me of the gerontocrats of the
Soviet Politburo in the worst stagnation years who had to appoint the likes of Chernenko to top
positions.
The one thing the Mr MAGA's administration has in common with the late Brezhevian
Politburo is its total inability to get anything done. My wife refers to the folks in the White
House (since Dubya came to power) as the " gang that couldn't shoot straight "
and she is right (she always is!): they just can't really get anything done anymore – all
their half-assed pseudo-successes are inevitably followed by embarrassing failures.
This was true in 2015 for Syria. Now this is true for Venezuela... So one can expect iether chemical attack opposition from Madura
government or "Snipergate" in EuroMaydan style. Or may some some more sophisticated, more nasty "false flag" operation in British style
like Skripal poisoning.
It will be interesting if Madura manage to survive despite the pressute...
Notable quotes:
"... Sorry but you're wrong. The funding a training of rebel forces by the west has done exactly what is was intended to do, mainly destabilise an entire region, sell billions in extra arms, introduce extra anti-terrorism laws in the west, create more fear and panic, then destabilise Europe through the mass-migration. This was the plan and it worked! ..."
"... To the great disappointment of those of us who voted for Obama, the first time out of hope for change, and the second time out of fear for someone even worse, he is a weak and chameleonic leader whose policies are determined by the strongest willed person in the room. Recall that he was also "talked into" bombing Libya! ..."
"... This isn't Bay of Pigs; its a bloated military trying to figure out what to do with its extra cash. Financially, it doesn't matter if the program is a failure. The cost is minuscule for the budget they have. ..."
"... Bush reached the Oval Office not because he was bright, for indeed he was not, he reached the Oval Office because he was dumb enough not to realise he was clearly easily manipulated, believed in neoliberalism and was rich and rich backers and a rich Dad. ..."
"... In Iran, we have a saying which says; take off a Mullah's turban and you will find the words "Made in England" stamped on his head. ..."
"... ISIS/ISIL is a creation of the US in an attempt to remove Assad. The long-term goal being to isolate Iran before going in there for the natural resources. ..."
"... The White House statement specifically refers to the "Syrian opposition". That's the term we use to describe anti-government forces. This recruitment and training programme has gone awry because the people originally recruited would have been anti-Assad. Now the Obama administration has tried to change the same people to fighting to ISIS instead. No wonder there's only "four to five" left. This is one big fustercluck! ..."
"... The CIA has probably been the greatest destabalising force in the world since the second world war and seem like more a subsidiary of the weapons trade than a government department. ..."
Why does the US continually send deadly weapons to the Middle East, make things even more chaotic than they were before and expect
better results the next time?
As pretty much everyone who was paying attention predicted, the $500m program to train and arm "moderate"
Syrian rebels is an unmitigated, Bay of Pigs-style disaster, with the head of US central command
admitting to Congress this week that the year-old
program now only has "four or five" rebels fighting inside Syria, with dozens
more killed or captured.
Even more bizarre, the White House is
claiming little to do with it. White House spokesman Josh Earnest attempted to distance Obama from the program, claiming that
it was actually the president's "critics" who "were wrong." The
New York Times reported, "In effect, Mr Obama is arguing that he reluctantly went along with those who said it was the way to
combat the Islamic State, but that he never wanted to do it and has now has been vindicated in his original judgment."
This bizarre "I was peer pressured into sending more weapons into the Middle East" argument by the president is possibly the most
blatant example of blame shifting in recent memory, since he had every opportunity to speak out against it, or veto the bill. Instead,
this is what
Obama said at the time: "I am pleased that Congress...have now voted to support a key element of our strategy: our plan to train
and equip the opposition in Syria."
But besides the fact that he clearly did support the policy at the time, it's ridiculous for another reason: years before Congress
approved the $500m program to arm the Syrian rebels, the CIA had been running its own separate Syrian rebel-arming program since
at least 2012. It was
reported prominently by the New York Times
at the time and approved by the president.
In fact, just before Congress voted, Senator Tom Udall
told Secretary of State
John Kerry, who was testifying in front of the foreign relations committee, "Everybody's well aware there's been a covert operation,
operating in the region to train forces, moderate forces, to go into Syria and to be out there, that we've been doing this the last
two years." In true Orwellian fashion, Kerry responded
at the time: "I
hate to do this. But I can't confirm or deny whatever that's been written about and I can't really go into any kind of possible program."
Also conveniently ignored by Congress and those advocating for arming the rebels was a
classified
study the CIA did at the time showing that arming rebel factions against sitting governments almost always ends in disaster or
tragedy.
You'd think whether or not the current weapons-running program was effective – or whether any similar program ever was – would
have been a key factor in the debate. But alas, the CIA program is never mentioned, not by politicians, and not by journalists. It's
just been conveniently forgotten.
It is true that perhaps the best advocate for why we never should've armed the Syrian rebels to begin with came from President
Obama himself. He told the
New Yorker in early 2014 that "you have an opposition that is disorganized, ill-equipped, ill-trained and is self-divided. All
of that is on top of some of the sectarian divisions." Critically,
he cited that same above-mentioned
classified study:
Very early in this process, I actually asked the CIA to analyze examples of America financing and supplying arms to an insurgency
in a country that actually worked out well. And they couldn't come up with much.
He didn't mention the CIA's already-active weapons-running program. Why he didn't stick to his guns since he supposedly was weary
of getting the US military involved in yet another quagmire
it could not get out of is beyond anyone's comprehension. Instead, he supported Congress's measure to create yet another program
that sent even more weapons to the war-torn region.
Per usual, Republicans are taking the entirely wrong lessons from this disaster, arguing that if only there was more force then
everything would've worked out. Marco Rubio exclaimed
during the GOP presidential debate on Wednesday that if we armed the rebels earlier – like he allegedly wanted, before
voting against arming them when he had the chance – then the program would've worked out. Like seemingly everyone else in this
debate, Rubio has decided to ignore the actual facts.
Sadly, instead of a debate about whether we should continue sending weapons to the Middle East at all, we'll probably hear arguments
that we should double down in Syria in the coming days and get US troops more cemented into a war we can call our own (that still
to this day has not been authorized by Congress). There are already reports that there are
US special operations forces on the ground in Syria
now, assisting Kurdish forces who are also fighting Isis.
When the vicious and tragic cycle will end is anyone's guess. But all signs point to: not anytime soon.
Oliver2014 19 Sep 2015 21:27
" Why does the US continually send deadly weapons to the Middle East, make things even more chaotic than they were before and
expect better results the next time? "
Because the US doesn't understand the culture of the people it meddles with.
The US goes in with a messianic belief in the righteousness of its objective. This objective is framed in naive terms to convince
itself and the people that it's motives are benevolent - such as "we must fight communism" or "we will bring democracy to Iraq"
or "Saddam Hussein is an evil man who uses chemical weapons on his own people and hence must be ousted" or "Assad is an evil man
who is fighting a civil war with his own people".
As a superpower it feels compelled to interfere in conflicts lest it be seen as impotent. When it does not interfere, as in
WW2, things do indeed get out of control. So it's damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.
The CIA did not understand Afghan history of fighting off invaders when it was arming the Mujaheddin and that after the Soviets
were defeated it would perceive the Americans as invaders and not as liberators who were there to bring them democracy and teach
them that growing poppy was bad. (Like alcohol in the 1930s, a national addiction problem cannot be solved on the supply side
- as the CIA and DEA learnt in South America.)
Bush Sr. was right when he left Saddam alone after bloodying his nose for invading Kuwait because he understood that Saddam
was playing a vital Tito-esque role in keeping his country and the neighborhood in check. He had no WMDs but wanted his adversaries
in the region to believe otherwise. If Saddam were alive today we wouldn't have an Iraq problem, an ISIS problem, an Iran problem
and a Syria problem.
Smedley Butler 19 Sep 2015 21:12
"Why he didn't stick to his guns since he supposedly was weary of getting the US military involved in yet another quagmire
it could not get out of is beyond anyone's comprehension."
Maybe it's because he hasn't stuck to his guns on anything during the entire time he's been President. He always takes the
path of least resistance, the easy way out, and a "conservative-lite" position that tries to satisfy everyone and actually satisfies
no one.
What an utter disappointment.
DavidEG 19 Sep 2015 20:01
The Machiavellian machinations of the empire become less relevant with every passing day. It's Europeans now who are eating
sweet fruits of "mission accomplished". And they may rebel, and kick out last remnants of their "unity", and sacred NATO alliance
alongside.
PamelaKatz AndyMcCarthy 19 Sep 2015 18:33
Obama said the US would take 10,000 Syrian refugees. When I heard this, I thought surely a zero must be missing from this figure.
And what no one has publicly mentioned is the immigration process for these few will require at least a year of investigative
background checks.
PamelaKatz jvillain 19 Sep 2015 18:15
The largest manufacturers and global distributors of weaponry are the US, the UK, France, Russia and China, in that order.......
also known as the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council. One should read the UN Charter, which states the purpose and
parameters for forming this international organization. The word 'irony' comes to mind.
ID108738 19 Sep 2015 17:36
Saddam Hussein was a friend while he gassed the Iranians, then he invaded Kuwait; as long as Bin Laden fought the Russians,
he was tolerated and funded; now there's Syria. The only thing needed to take the strategy to new levels of idiocy was a compliant
nincompoop as prime minister in Britain. Will they ever learn?
Toi Jon 19 Sep 2015 17:27
The US understands how to create a market for their military hardware industry but has never understood how their interference
in the Middle East creates mass human misery.
Samantha Stevens 19 Sep 2015 17:09
Quite simply the US is breaking international law by doing this. Every time they do it the world ends up with another shit
storm. If they cannot behave responsibly they should be removed from the security council of the UN. Same goes for the Russians
and any other power abusing their position.
Syria may not have been the epitome of humanity before being destabilised but it is certainly worse now. The same is true of Iraq.
In fact have the US successfully overturned any government they deem un-American (LOL) without it leading to a civil war?
Andy Freeman 19 Sep 2015 17:06
Sorry but you're wrong. The funding a training of rebel forces by the west has done exactly what is was intended to do,
mainly destabilise an entire region, sell billions in extra arms, introduce extra anti-terrorism laws in the west, create more
fear and panic, then destabilise Europe through the mass-migration. This was the plan and it worked!
People will call for a solution, the solution will be tighter integration in Europe, the abolition of national governments,
the removal of cash to stop payments to "terrorists", more draconian spying laws, less from and eventually compulsory registration
and ID for all Europeans.
Meanwhile, we'll have a few more false flag attacks supposedly caused by the refugees and more fear in the news. Open your
eyes
Laurie Calhoun 19 Sep 2015 16:49
"Why he didn't stick to his guns..." Not the most felicitous metaphor in this case, but here is the answer to your question:
To the great disappointment of those of us who voted for Obama, the first time out of hope for change, and the second time
out of fear for someone even worse, he is a weak and chameleonic leader whose policies are determined by the strongest willed
person in the room. Recall that he was also "talked into" bombing Libya!
Sad but true. For more details on how this works, read Daniel Klaidman's book Kill or Capture: The war on terror and the soul
of the Obama presidency.
after the libya disaster the US should have abandoned plans for regim change in syria.
and the US missed a golden opportunity to recitfy what had already become a syria disaster by allowing turkey and the ludicrous
SNC to so thoroughly undermine the Geneva talks.
The U.S and U.K's commitment should be to those in Iraq. Secure, rebuild and invest in helping that Nation come with the
best solution to a, rid itself of ISIS, b, be able to stay that way, c have a government that is inclusive to the needs of
the Sunni's, Shia's and Kurds
Just as I thought that you can not surpass yourself in writing stupid comments, and you are immediately reassured me.
Thus, the US and the UK spent nearly ten years in Iraq and failed to make any of this what you write, but but the whole mess practically
they themselves have created. And now you're saying that if the US and UK troops returned again to Iraq they will be able to fix
everything that they had previously screwed and to create an "inclusive society" of Iraq. So, if the US and UK troops set foot
again on the soil of Iraq, it will be the strongest reason for Iraqi Sunnis to reject the inclusion in the Iraqi society. Iraqi
officials themselves are aware of this very well, and for that reason they are the first to oppose such an intervention.
BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister strongly rejected the idea of the U.S. or other nations sending ground forces to his country
to help fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, saying Wednesday that foreign troops are "out of the question."...
Al-Abadi, a Shiite lawmaker who faces the enormous task of trying to hold Iraq together as a vast array of forces threaten
to rip it apart, welcomed the emerging international effort, but stressed that he sees no need for other nations to send troops
to help fight ISIS.
"Not only is it not necessary," he said, "We don't want them. We won't allow them. Full stop."
"The only contribution the American forces or the international coalition is going to help us with is from the sky," al-Abadi
said. "We are not giving any blank check to the international coalition to hit any target in Iraq."
He said that the Iraqi military will choose and approve targets, and that the U.S. will not take action without consulting
with Baghdad first. Failure to do so, he warned, risks causing civilian casualties like in Pakistan and Yemen, where the U.S.
has conducted drone strikes for years.
Well, Well, whether i notice here distrust even of Iraqi Shiites toward the US Air Force. On the other hand, they want to strengthen
friendship with neighboring governments in Syria and Iran: ;
Al-Abadi,
however, said that Iraq doesn't have the luxury of testy relations with Damascus, and instead pushed for some sort of coordination.
"We cannot afford to fight our neighbor, even if we disagree on many things," al-Abadi said. "We don't want to enter into
problems with them. For us sovereignty of Syria is very important." The two countries, both of which are allies of Iran, appear
to already be coordinating on some level, and Iraq's national security adviser met Tuesday with Assad in the Syrian capital,
where the two agreed to strengthen cooperation in fighting "terrorism," according to Syria's state news agency.
The U.S. hopes to pull together a broad coalition to help defeat the extremist group, but has ruled out cooperating with
neighboring Iran or Syria, both of which also view ISIS as a threat. Both countries were excluded from a conference this week
in Paris that brought the U.S., France and other allies together to discuss how to address the militant threat.
Al-Abadi said that excluding Damascus and Tehran was counterproductive.
So, it is obvious that the Iraqi government is not against inclusion, but they're for such inclusion, which will exclude the US
and UK of interfering in their internal affairs. I think it is a good step towards reconciliation with their Sunni brothers because
they also seem to support such a thing. And if they managed to do it, maybe Ukrainians will also draw some lesson from it and
be able to reconcile with their brothers Russians.
Ieuan ytrewq 19 Sep 2015 14:04
ytrewq said: "USSR and China supplied a lot of support and material to N. Vietnam."
Very true.
However the Viet Minh were formed and initially supplied by OSS (later called the CIA) forces from the US. In fact Ho Chi Min
had a naive hope that the US would support him in his struggle against foreign occupation of the country after the war (French
colonialism) and made several appeals to President Truman for help (all of which were ignored).
Instead of which, the US supported the French, so Ho asked around and got help from the Russians and Chinese. The rest we know.
marginline AndyMcCarthy 19 Sep 2015 13:54
The UK and France [...], they destroyed Libya.
The causality of which led to an Islamic terror attack on June 26th, 2015 ten kilometers north of the city of Sousse, Tunisia,
where thirty-eight people; thirty of whom were British - were murdered.
sashasmirnoff JoJo McJoJo 19 Sep 2015 13:40
The US is always wrong, and always responsible for every bad thing that happens on Earth.
They are always wrong, and are indeed responsible for almost every geopolitical disaster, usually a result of overthrowing
governments and installing their own tyrant, or else leaving a vacuum that Islamists fill.
Zaarth 19 Sep 2015 13:34
This $500m program cost less than 0.1% of the US annual defense budget. When you're dealing with sums of money as obscenely
large as the US spends on its military, its inevitable that huge quantities will be wasted because you've passed the point where
there's worthwhile things to spend it on. This isn't Bay of Pigs; its a bloated military trying to figure out what to do with
its extra cash. Financially, it doesn't matter if the program is a failure. The cost is minuscule for the budget they have.
In recent years the right has been very concerned with balancing the national budget and shrinking debt. They're willing to
cut spending for social programs and research, but god forbid you take money away from the military. It just wouldn't be patriotic.
marginline -> GeneralMittens 19 Sep 2015 13:14
Great summary GeneralMittens. You have expressed in layman's terms the facts eluded to by journalist Mehdi Hasan when he quantified
the depth of the strategic disaster the Iraq war actually was – or, as the Conservative minister Kenneth Clarke put it back in
a 2013 BBC radio discussion...
the most disastrous foreign policy decision of my lifetime [ ] worse than Suez
The invasion and occupation of Iraq undermined the moral standing of the western powers; empowered Iran and its proxies; heightened
the threat from al-Qaeda at home and abroad; and sent a clear signal to 'rogue' regimes that the best (the only?) means of deterring
a preemptive, US-led attack was to acquire weapons of mass destruction. [ ] Iraq has been destroyed and hundreds of thousands
of innocent people have lost their lives, as the direct result of an unnecessary, unprovoked war that, according to the former
chief justice Lord Bingham, was a...
serious violation of international law
This leads me to the conclusion and I apologies for flogging this dead horse yet again BUT...why are Bush and Bliar not being
detained at The Hague?
Ieuan 19 Sep 2015 12:45
" I actually asked the CIA to analyze examples of America financing and supplying arms to an insurgency in a country that actually
worked out well."
Well, they (the OSS at the time) supplied arms and training to the Viet Minh. When they were fighting the Japanese. Which worked
out well, when they were only fighting the Japanese.
But when they used their expertise (and the arms they had left over) to carry on fighting the French, and later the Americans
themselves, it worked out very well for the Viet Minh, not so well for the French and Americans.
GangZhouEsq 19 Sep 2015 12:27
The first President Bush, who decided not to topple President Saddam Hussein after routing his military forces out of Kuwait,
and instead to leave him in power for the sake of the Middle East stability is, in retrospect, probably the wisest foreign policy
decision ever made by the 41st President, thanks not only to his own personal judgment but also to his foreign policy aides' wisdom.
Though it is now too late for the son to learn from his father, it is still not too late for the present administration to learn
a thing or two from the former senior President Bush.
twoheadednightingale 19 Sep 2015 12:25
Nice to read an article coming at the war from this angle, seems like people are finally starting to question the effectiveness
US foreign policy - ie bombing for peace. However the article is fairly nieve in places - like who actually believes the president
of the US has control over all its intelligence agencies? JFK told the world in april '61, not long after the CIA had set him
up over the bay of pigs and months before being assassinated exactly that. So enough of the 'blame the president' bullshit, it
doesn't get to the root of the problem
GangZhouEsq 19 Sep 2015 12:17
The last major armament, including heavy guns, tanks and armored personnel carriers, as sent by the United States to the now
notoriously incompetent Iraqi military forces is now reportedly in the hands of ISIS after these US-trained Iraqi military personnel
simply abandoned their posts of defense and deserted for their own dear lives, thus leaving the centuries-old, formerly safe haven
of Mosul for Iraqi Christians to the mercy of ISIS. See "60 Minutes", Sunday, September 13, 2015, "Iraq's Christians", at
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/iraqs-christians-the-shooting-at-chardon-high-king-of-crossfit.
pfox33 19 Sep 2015 12:04
The fact that Putin is coming to Assad's aid is a game-changer that the US was unprepared for. For one thing, it's highlighted
how inconsequential US efforts to bolster "moderate" rebels and degrade ISIS capabilities have been.
From the time it was reported that the Russians were upgrading an airbase at Latakia to the time that it was reported that
they had dispatched helicopters and jets and that the Syrians had started to take the fight to ISIS in Raqqah and Palmyra was
only a matter of weeks. The CIA's program, after a year, had produced five soldiers at a cost of 500 million.
Previously the US had free reign over Syrian skies as did Israel who would bomb what they deemed to be convoys of military
supplies for Hezbollah. Things aren't so free and easy now with the Russians in town. And both the Americans and Israelis now
realize they have to check in with them before them they make sorties over northern Syria.
It's fairly obvious, to me anyway, that the US and Israel's only endgame was the fall of Assad and that ISIS had their tacit
approval. Assad's good relations with Iran and Hezbollah meant he was a marked man. Putin, as is his wont, has complicated their
plans and the results are yet to be seen.
BradfordChild TastySalmon 19 Sep 2015 11:58
"Iraq, Libya, Syria. What do/did these countries have in common? Unfriendly leaders who want nothing to do with the US."
Actually, Gaddafi had shown an interest in engaging with the West-- happened under Bush, but was never really followed up on.
Still, it was headed in a more positive direction until Obama rather arbitrarily decided that Gaddafi had to go.
The real net effect of US intervention in the Middle East has been to destabilize Europe.
Tony Page bravo7490 19 Sep 2015 11:32
I would agree but, as a former intelligence professional, I'd remind you that there's always a story behind the story. Not
that it's a "good" story! But more must be going on there...
ByThePeople 19 Sep 2015 11:12
"Why does the US continually send deadly weapons to the Middle East, make things even more chaotic than they were before and
expect better results the next time?"
It depends on how you define better. To think that these ops take place with the intent to solve an issue is naive, they don't.
You state yourself that the CIA freely admits it's never worked.
The reason the United States funds and arms groups in the Middle East is that 9 times out of 10, these same groups are then
later labeled 'terrorists' and a new US war campaign is justified.
It's not about solving problems - unless the problem being solved is: How do we create more opportunities to half-ass justify
engaging in another war effort so the US coffers can be continuously raped.
Iraq is the perfect example of succeeding in achieving this goal. Years before the Iraq war ever began, US war planners knew
that a power vacuum, attracting the likes of Al-Qaeda and or ISIS would subsequently result. Thus, providing a for a second war,
derived from the first seemingly pointless invasion. The Iraq plan worked fabulously as not only did the newly created enemy materialize,
they also became a much more formidable enemy once they conveniently came into possession of all the military equipment we let
behind.
Point is, they wouldn't continue implementing all these operations if the goal wasn't being achieved.
I will add too - McCain and Co. clamored so hard to arm the al-Assad opposition McCain might as well have claimed that if we
did not, then America would be blown up in its entirety in 48 hours the same as all the other fear mongering done in a effort
to continue the war efforts. Who knows, maybe he did, I try not to listen to him anymore - he needs to be put out to pasture.
TastySalmon 19 Sep 2015 11:10
Iraq, Libya, Syria. What do/did these countries have in common? Unfriendly leaders who want nothing to do with the US.
To suggest that funding radicals to overthrow these governments is a "whoops" or something that will never work is completely
wrong. The plan has worked exactly as planned: destabilize the region by promoting dissent, covertly arm and fund "rebels" through
back-channels (Saudi, UAE, Turkey, etc.), create a new boogeyman (ISIS), and reforge alliances with enemies (AQ) who will then
turn on us again in the future.
The goal is to flatten Syria, and it seems to be working out very well. When you consider what the ultimate outcome will be,
it starts becoming fairly clear: push Russia into a corner militarily and economically, open new LNG pipelines, appease allied
caliphates, and put billions of dollars into the pockets of the wealthiest people.
Their policy is chaotic and consists of repeating the same thing over and over again hoping to get different results, which
is, as we all know, the definition of madness.
I think the problem may well be the bloated MIC in the US. Too many strategic game plans for to many, often contradictory ends.
There are no doubt there are intelligence analysts in the US MIC who have a genuine interest in collecting actual information
and present it honestly. The numerous leaks show us this.
The problem is, this often good information, once it's been spun through political/economic vested interests, think tanks,
cold war jar head imperialists and so forth, it (foreign policy) ends up complete fubar.
To the point where, as you rightly say imo, their foreign policy looks like nothing more than "malicious wily manipulators,
deliberately buggering up the world to make money out of the consequences."
david wright 19 Sep 2015 10:49
For a full century now, from the Balfour Declaration and the secret Sykes-Picot arrangement, the currently-top 'Western' dog
(UK; then US) has been meddling and futzing around in the Middle East, notionally in someone's 'National Interest.'
Oil, access to Empire (route to India etc) and 'national prestige' have been the usual excuses. The result has been unmitigated
disaster.
Ignoring everything up to Gulf 1 (1991) we've a quarter century century of determined scoring of own-goals. This shows no sign
of changing. This is a helter-skelter race to destruction, greatly presently aided and abetted by Asad. So far, it's lasted two-and-a-half
times longer than the combined lengths of both World Wars.
One conclusion is that by any rational assessment, we don't deserve to 'win', whatever that would constitute, any more than
did one side or the other in the 16th -17th century's European religious wars. An equally rational assessment is that we neither
have, nor can. The final rational conclusion, that we find a way to disengage - remarkably simply, by stopping doing all the things
we have been - is a fence refused by the relevant horses - again, mainly US and (as very eager, jr partner indeed) UK.All apart
from the monstrous outcomes for the people in the region, we destabilize our own security then make things worse by tightening
our own internal 'security' at the expense of civil liberties. This gives away, at no gain, the slow and scrabbling accretion
of these, over centuries. And Cameron and co remain sufficiently delusional to want to keep on bombing, but whatever toys they
have, whatever seems a good idea on the day. How can we win? the war isn't on 'terror', but ion logic. Ours. |Neither the US nor
UK governments have ever shown much interest in the fates of the millions of people their casual actions have ended, or made hell.
Of the multiple ironies (shall I count the ways?) attending all this is that Saddam, while a murderous thug, and no friend to
his own people, was doing for us, for free, what we've been unable to do for ourselves - keep Iraq al-Quaida free. AS to his murderous
propensities, clearly far fewer of his people (alone) would have been killed had we not intervened, than we have directly or indirectly
killed. Much of this stems from the fact that during the same recent period (1991 on) there has been no effective counter to Western
power and inclination, which has simply projectile-vomited its baneful influence. Ironic too that the reason we armed and greatly
helped create al-Quaida was to destabilize Russia by getting it bogged down in Afghanistan. Thus the only real fear which limited
US action, was removed when that policy was successful. We removed the brakes as the train was beginning to accelerate down the
incline. Wheeee!
teaandchocolate smifee 19 Sep 2015 10:47
Bush reached the Oval Office not because he was bright, for indeed he was not, he reached the Oval Office because he was
dumb enough not to realise he was clearly easily manipulated, believed in neoliberalism and was rich and rich backers and a rich
Dad.
As to "not having a serious mark against his name", forgive me if I laugh hysterically while crying with pain.
The least said about the moron Reagan and his jolly pal Thatcher the better. Oh how well their unregulated market shenanigans
have turned out.
Crackpots the lot of them.
LethShibbo AndyMcCarthy 19 Sep 2015 10:35
Doing nothing and minding your own business is kinda the same thing.
And the civil war in Syria isn't purely a result of what happened in neighbouring Iraq.
What you're essentially saying is 'America, you've started this fire. Now let it burn.'
pansapians DrDrug 19 Sep 2015 10:28
Well of course ISIS were miffed that the U.S. was paying lip service to not arming ISIS. If you think there was ever any serious
difference between the FSA and ISIS then I hear that the Queen having to sell Buckingham palace due to losses gambling on corgi
races and I can get you a good deal for a cash sale
IrateHarry Havingalavrov 19 Sep 2015 10:17
Make Iraq work first..
ROFLMFAO...
Iraq has been so thoroughly screwed over by the UKUSA clusterfuck, there is no chance of it working ever again.
AndyMcCarthy LethShibbo 19 Sep 2015 10:12
Sorry, the US doesn't HAVE to make a choice, do nothing or bomb. All the US needs to do is mind it's own business.
We wouldn't be having this refugee crises if the US hadn't invaded Iraq.
Tomasgolfer 19 Sep 2015 10:10
For a little insight, see "The Red Line and the Rat Line", by Seymour M. Hersh. Published in the
London Review of Books
The US (and the UK and France for that matter) has been openly arming and training the "rebels". The US had a vote in congress
to openly do just that last year. Covertly, they've been doing it since 2012, again this has been well reported and admitted to.
The problem for the US is their so called "moderates" don't exist. They either switch allegiance once back in Syria or end
up captured or killed just as quickly.
Your user name seems somewhat of a parody.
ArtofLies richardoxford 19 Sep 2015 10:00
How does that compute ?
it computes once one answers this slightly naive question from the article
Why does the US continually send deadly weapons to the Middle East, make things even more chaotic than they were before
and expect better results the next time?
surely at some point people have to realise that chaos is the result the US is looking for.
IrateHarry 19 Sep 2015 09:56
Why does the US continually send deadly weapons to the Middle East
Because that is the backbone business of America - making and selling deadly weapons. Deadlier the better, and no matter whom
they are supplied to. If foreign governments don't buy, does not matter, just supply it to "rebels", and they will be paid for
by the tax payers across the west (not just the American ones, NATO has been set up as the mechanism to tap into European tax
payers as well).
The rest of the bullshit like democracy, freedom, etc are marketeers' crap.
No wonder there's only "four to five" left. This is one big fustercluck!
There was a report in the NY Times last year by a reporter who was kidnapped by the FSA (his mission was to find them and find
out who they were) and handed straight over to Al-Nusra. Twice. He was imprisoned and tortured by them.
In his revealing report, talking of the couple of days he spent back with the "FSA", his release having been negotiated by
the west, he asked the "FSA" fighters about the training they received from the US in Jordan. The reporter put it to the fighters
that the training was to fight AN/IS. Their response? "We lied to the Americans about that".
The WSJ also recently reported that the CIA mission to arm/train "moderates/FSA" had gone totally tits up. Most of them reported
as defecting to one of the number of more extreme groups, some having been captured or killed.
It's been clear for about 2 years now that these so called "moderates" only exist in the deluded minds of western policy makers.
JacobHowarth MushyP8 19 Sep 2015 09:51
ISIS do not control that large a number of people. Many Kurds are fleeing because of IS, that's true, but for the most part
the civil war is a horror show from both sides and Syrians are - rightly - getting the hell out of there.
Or are all of those 'taking advantage of the opportunity to move to Europeans [sic] countries' proposing to do so by going
to Lebanon and Jordan?
The suspiciously unasked questions as to motives of all parties at Benghazi, by all twelve (12) members of the Select Committee,
suggests collaboration to question Hillary Clinton to make her appear responsible only for bungling security and rescue, for the
sole purpose of diverting attention from Hillary Clinton's role in the CIA and the CIA operative Ambassador Stevens' arming of
terrorists. The obvious question to ask would have gone to motives: "What activities were Stevens and the CIA engaged in, when
they were attacked at Benghazi?"
GreenRevolution 19 Sep 2015 09:10
The use of religion(Islam specifically) in politics was first employed by the British in the Middle East in the early parts
of the 20th century. In Iran, we have a saying which says; take off a Mullah's turban and you will find the words "Made in
England" stamped on his head.
nnedjo 19 Sep 2015 09:09
Even more bizarre, the White House is claiming little to do with it. White House spokesman Josh Earnest attempted to distance
Obama from the program, claiming that it was actually the president's "critics" who "were wrong."
Yes, it seems that it has become a tradition of US presidents to boast with the fact that "they do not interfere much in their
own job".
For example, in the last campaign for the GOP candidate for the US president, Jeb Bush defended his brother George for a false
pretext for war in Iraq in the form of non-existent WMD, claiming that everyone else would bring the same decision on the start
of the war, if the same false intelligence would be presented to him.
Thus, the president of the United States can not be held accountable for its decisions if the CIA deliver him false intelligence,
or deliberately conceal the true intelligence. On the other hand, since no one has heard of any person from the CIA which is held
responsible for the wrong war in Iraq, it turns out that nobody is responsible for this war.
And, to us, mere mortals, it remains only to conclude that the most powerful war machine in the world moves "without a driver",
or maybe it is "driven by some automatic pilot".
So, how tragic it is, and yet we can not help laughing. :-)
mikiencolor 19 Sep 2015 09:06
It was obvious to anyone with a modicum of sense from the beginning that the "moderate" rebel training programme would be an
utter disaster. But if the lessons you are taking is that nothing should be done at all, I'd submit you are taking the wrong lessons
from the debacle. Doing nothing at all would have condemned tens of thousands more to genocide. Doing something saved thousands
of Yezidi and saved Rojava.
Wherever the Kurds have been supported they have proved capable, trustworthy and have created functional civil societies. To
broadly and undiscerningly dismiss "sending weapons to the Middle East" is disingenuous. Something must be done, and things can
be done to help rather than harm if there is a sensible policy maker, and doing nothing certainly can be more immoral and evil
than doing something - as I thought we'd learned from Nazi Germany.
The reality is one that neither right wing nor left wing hardliners are willing to face: the Sunni Arab jihadis are the source
of most of the problems and the reason is entirely to do with their noxious genocidal and imperialistic ideology and culture.
They are a source of instability, enmity and fear, and not just in the Middle East either. And they are being supported and bankrolled
by Western allies in the Gulf. The world is a big place with many peoples and ways of thought, and many disagreements - but we
nearly all of us seem able to find a way to coexist in this new globalised technological human civilisation. The jihadis are a
barbarian throwback, a movement of violent primitivists. There is no place for jihadism in the future and they are a threat to
everyone in the world.
ID0020237 -> teaandchocolate 19 Sep 2015 09:01
Insanity I believe, not madness, but what's the difference. The CIA may get it right, but after political interference and
manipulation, they change their conclusions. We've seen this with the Iraq debacle and elsewhere. Just as political interference
in military operations, Viet Nam for example, causes imminent failure, so it is with intelligence ignored.
GeneralMittens 19 Sep 2015 09:01
So basically America invades and bombs the shit out of everywhere and the europeans have to clean up the mess and deal with
the resulting refugee crisis?
At some point America should be held accountable for their actions in the middle east. Whether thats taking their fair share
of refugees from syria or footing the bill for this clusterfuck.
At the very least, other countries should stop enabling their warmongering.
LittleGhost 19 Sep 2015 08:58
US foreign policy in the ME proves Einstein's maxim
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
GreenRevolution 19 Sep 2015 08:57
It has been 14 years since 911 and Bush's so called "war on terror". Not only barbaric wahabi terror has not been defeated
it has grown its barbarism to magnitudes unimaginable previously. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been allowed to arm them
to the teeth by the very states who claim to be waging "war on terror". Since Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are close allies
of the west and one is a member of NATO, it follows that the west is in fact arming the wahabi terrorists who have turned the
Middle East into a wasteland murdering and looting at will. Millions are now refugees, countries laid to waste and yet Mr Kerry
and Hammond talk as if they have done such magnificent jobs and Russian involvement would only "complicate" things.
teaandchocolate 19 Sep 2015 08:56
I don't think they have the brightest people working in the CIA and the military in the USA. They are probably bullies, relics
from the Cold War, jar-heads, devout 6000-year-old-world Christians, neocons and fruitcakes. Their policy is chaotic and consists
of repeating the same thing over and over again hoping to get different results, which is, as we all know, the definition of madness.
smifee 19 Sep 2015 08:52
To be honest, I don't see any confusion.
Obama comes across as a (comparatively) humane person, and I am sure that his personal preference would be for there to be
no violence in the middle east. As President of the USA, however, he has to set aside his personal preferences and act in the
wider interests of his country.
The US set out to realign the political make up of the middle east. No doubt, they want to make sure Islam will never again
be able attack US interests.
Successive Administrations have controlled the funding and arming of various factions within the Middle East to ensure that
Muslims kill each other and weaken social structures. The US will fill the ensuing political vacuum and economic waste-land with
local leaders loyal to 'freedom, democracy and the American Way'. The next Administration will continue to stoke up the violence,
and the one after, and the one after that until the US is satisfied it has achieved its objective.
It seems almost all of us have to contain our personal views if we want to succeed in our place of work. Even the P of the
USA.
GoldMoney -> celloswiss 19 Sep 2015 08:51
True, in a democracy, moderates don't need bombs and assault weapons.
Consider this - how would you feel if foreign governments were arming and funding the IRA in Northern Ireland?
What if foreign governments recognised the IRA as a legitimate opposition to the Belfast government and gave them bombs to
take over the country?
MichaelGuess 19 Sep 2015 08:46
Who are the real terrorists, the group that bombs indiscriminately, the group that sells arms to both sides, the group that's
lies to its "coalition" partners, the group that spies on all its friends, the group that is happy to be starting wars everywhere
and then blame other parties for their lack of support.
These are the real terrorists.
MushyP8 19 Sep 2015 08:46
ISIS/ISIL is a creation of the US in an attempt to remove Assad. The long-term goal being to isolate Iran before going
in there for the natural resources.
Assad won 89% of the vote in a 74% turnout, how many world leaders have 65% of the population supporting them, hence why Assad
hasn't fallen. Naturally the US refuted this alongside its lapdogs, the EU and the UK, as it disproves all the propaganda they've
been feeding the west. RT news did an interview with Assad which was very insightful.
Putin seems to be the only one who's got his head screwed on in this situation, which is of course leading to hissy fits by
the US because he's proving a stumbling block. More nations need to get behind Putin and Assad, although of course the US wont.
GoldMoney DrDrug 19 Sep 2015 07:52
Moderates do, when the simple act of protesting against the mutilation of children detained by the states secret police
are met with a volley of snipers.
No such evidence has been bought to the UN security council. Even the chemical attack that the media claimed from day one was
Assad's forces doing turned out to be IS rebels actions. The two human rights groups operating in Syria are western funded NGO's
- hardly a neutral point of view given the US's long stated aim of removing Assad (even before 2011).
geedeesee 19 Sep 2015 07:25
This $500 million from June 2014 was for recruiting Syrian rebels seeking to oust President Bashar al-Assad - not to fight
iSIS.
The White House said at the time:
"This funding request would build on the administration's longstanding efforts to empower the moderate Syrian opposition,
both civilian and armed, and will enable the Department of Defense to increase our support to vetted elements of the armed
opposition."
The White House statement specifically refers to the "Syrian opposition". That's the term we use to describe anti-government
forces. This recruitment and training programme has gone awry because the people originally recruited would have been anti-Assad.
Now the Obama administration has tried to change the same people to fighting to ISIS instead. No wonder there's only "four to
five" left. This is one big fustercluck!
kingcreosote 19 Sep 2015 07:12
The CIA has probably been the greatest destabalising force in the world since the second world war and seem like more a
subsidiary of the weapons trade than a government department.
This article from 2017 looks like it was written yesterday. Trump betrayal of his elctorate on multiple levels, essentially on all
key poin of his election program mkes him "Republican Obama".
What is interesting about Trump foreign policy is his version of neoliberal "gangster capitalism" on foreign arena:
might is right principle applied like universal opener. Previous administrations tried to put a lipstick on the pig. Trump
does not even bother.
In terms of foreign policy, and even during the transition before Trump's inauguration, there were other, more disturbing signs
of where Trump would be heading soon. When Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016,
Trump seemed jubilant as if he had somehow been vindicated, and took the opportunity to slander Castro as a "brutal dictator" who
"oppressed his own people" and turned Cuba into a "totalitarian island".
Notable quotes:
"... However, when he delivered his inaugural address on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the government's back on a long-standing policy of cultural imperialism , stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first". ..."
"... Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office -- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat. ..."
"... The entire conflict with Russia that has developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. ..."
"... Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from wars for regime change, Trump sold out again. "I love WikiLeaks -- " -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding. ..."
"... AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States? ..."
"... AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing? ..."
"... AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange? ..."
"... While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US, witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to them. ..."
"... Since NAFTA was implemented, migration from Mexico to the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately drove them away from agriculture ..."
"... As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact, per capita GDP is nearly a flat line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures that have been implemented, the US leads the world . ..."
"... To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only when the US reaps the greater share of benefits. ..."
"... As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son -- then what an abysmally poor choice he is ..."
"... On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism, which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced. ..."
"... As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism . Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics. ..."
"... As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition. ..."
Trump could have kept quiet, and lost nothing. Instead what he was attacking -- and the irony was missed on his fervently right
wing supporters -- was someone who was a leader in the anti-globalist movement, from long before it was ever called that. Fidel Castro
was a radical pioneer of independence, self-reliance, and self-determination.
Castro turned Cuba from an American-owned sugar plantation and brothel, a lurid backwater in the Caribbean, into a serious international
actor opposed to globalizing capitalism. There was no sign of any acknowledgment of this by Trump, who instead chose to parrot the
same people who would vilify him using similar terms (evil, authoritarian, etc.). Of course, Trump respects only corporate executives
and billionaires, not what he would see as some rag-tag Third World revolutionary. Here Trump's supporters generally failed, using
Castro's death as an opportunity for tribal partisanship, another opportunity to attack "weak liberals" like Obama who made minor
overtures to Cuba (too little, too late).
Their distrust of "the establishment" was nowhere to be found this time: their ignorance of Cuba and their resort to stock clichés
and slogans had all been furnished to them by the same establishment they otherwise claimed to oppose.
Just to be clear, the above is not meant to indicate any reversal on Trump's part regarding Cuba. He has been consistently anti-communist,
and fairly consistent in his denunciations of Fidel Castro. What is significant is that -- far from overcoming the left-right divide
-- Trump shores up the barriers, even at the cost of denouncing others who have a proven track record of fighting against neoliberal
globalization and US interventionism. In these regards, Trump has no track record. Even among his rivals in the Republican primaries,
senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul had more of an anti-interventionist track record.
However, when he delivered his inaugural address
on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the
government's back on a long-standing policy of
cultural imperialism
, stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill
with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations
to put their own interests first".
Russia
Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office
-- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy
conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat.
Instead, Trump continued the sanctions, as if out of meek deference to Obama's policy, one founded on lies and antagonism
toward Trump himself. Rather than repair the foul attempt to sabotage the US-Russian relationship in preparation for his presidency,
Trump simply abided and thus became an accomplice. To be clear,
Trump has done precisely nothing
to dampen the near mass hysteria that has been manufactured in the US about alleged -- indeed imaginary -- "Russian intervention".
His comments, both during the electoral campaign and even early into his presidency, about wanting good relations with Russia,
have been replaced by Trump's admissions that US relations with Russia are at a low point (Putin agreed: "I would say the level of
trust [between Russia and the US] is at a workable level, especially in the military dimension, but it hasn't improved. On the contrary,
it has degraded " and his spokesman called
the relations " deplorable ".)
Rather than use the power of his office to calm fears, to build better ties with Russia, and to make meeting with Vladimir Putin
a top priority, Trump has again done nothing , except escalating tensions. The entire conflict with Russia that has
developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. Russia had actively facilitated
the US' war in Afghanistan for over a decade, and was a consistent collaborator on numerous levels. It is up to thinking American
officials to honestly explain what motivated them to tilt relations with Russia, because it is certainly not Russia's doing. The
only explanation that makes any sense is that the US leadership grew concerned that Russia was no longer teetering on the edge of
total socio-economic breakdown, as it was under the neoliberal Boris Yeltsin, but has instead resurfaced as a major actor in international
affairs, and one that champions anti-neoliberal objectives of enhanced state sovereignty and self-determination.
WikiLeaks
Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from
wars for regime change, Trump sold out again.
"I love WikiLeaks --
" -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding.
After finding so much use for WikiLeaks' publication of the Podesta emails, which became incorporated into his campaign speeches,
and which fuelled the writing and speaking of journalists and bloggers sympathetic to Trump -- he was now effectively declaring WikiLeaks
to be both an enemy and a likely target of US government action, in even more blunt terms than we heard during the past eight years
under Obama. This is not mere continuity with the past, but a dramatic escalation. Rather than praise Julian Assange for his work,
call for an end to the illegal impediments to his seeking asylum, swear off any US calls for extraditing and prosecuting Assange,
and perhaps meeting with him in person, Trump has done all of the opposite. Instead we learn that Trump's administration may
file arrest charges against Assange
. Mike Pompeo ,
chosen by Trump to head the CIA, who had himself
cited WikiLeaks as a reliable source of proof about how the Democratic National Committee had rigged its campaign, now declared
WikiLeaks to be a "
non-state hostile intelligence service ," along with vicious personal slander against Assange.
Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks was one that he defended in terms that were not just a deceptive rewriting of history, but one
that was also fearful -- "I don't support or unsupport" WikiLeaks, was what Trump was now saying in his dash for the nearest exit.
The backtracking is so obvious in this
interview
Trump gave to the AP , that his shoes must have left skid marks on the floor:
AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on
Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with
the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States?
TRUMP: When Wikileaks came out never heard of Wikileaks, never heard of it. When Wikileaks came out, all I was just saying
is, "Well, look at all this information here, this is pretty good stuff." You know, they tried to hack the Republican, the RNC,
but we had good defenses. They didn't have defenses, which is pretty bad management. But we had good defenses, they tried to hack
both of them. They weren't able to get through to Republicans. No, I found it very interesting when I read this stuff and I said,
"Wow." It was just a figure of speech. I said, "Well, look at this. It's good reading."
AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing?
TRUMP: No, I don't support or unsupport. It was just information .
AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to
arrest Julian Assange?
TRUMP: I am not involved in that decision, but if Jeff Sessions wants to do it, it's OK with me. I didn't know about that decision,
but if they want to do it, it's OK with me.
First, Trump invents the fictitious claim that WikiLeaks was responsible for hacking the DNC, and that WikiLeaks also tried to
hack the Republicans. Second, he pretends to be an innocent bystander, a spectator, in his own administration -- whatever others
decide, is "OK" with him, not that he knows about their decisions, but it's all up to others. He has no power, all of a sudden.
Again, what Trump is displaying in this episode is his ultimate attachment to his class, with all of its anxieties and its contempt
for rebellious, marginal upstarts. Trump shuns any sort of "loyalty" to WikiLeaks (not that they ever had a working relationship)
or any form of gratitude, because then that would imply a debt and therefore a transfer of value -- whereas Trump's core ethics are
those of expedience and greed (he admits that much).
This move has come with a cost , with members of Trump's support base openly denouncing the betrayal. 6
NAFTA
On NAFTA , Trump claims he has not changed his position -- yet, from openly denouncing the free trade agreement and promising
to terminate it, he now vows only to seek modifications and amendments, which means supporting NAFTA. He appeared to be
awfully quick to obey the diplomatic pressure of Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and Mexico's President, Enrique Peña
Nieto. Trump's entire position on NAFTA now comes into question.
While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US,
witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support
for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to
them.
This really deserves to be treated at length, separately from this article. However, for now, let's keep in mind that when
Trump complains about Canadian softwood lumber and dairy exports to the US, his argument about NAFTA is without merit. Neither commodity
is part of the NAFTA agreement.
Moreover, where dairy is concerned, the problem is US overproduction.
Wisconsin alone has more
dairy cows than all of Canada . There is a net surplus , in the US' favour, with respect to US dairy exports to Canada.
Overall,
the US has a net surplus in the trade in
goods and services with Canada. Regarding Mexico, the irony of Trump's denunciations of imaginary Mexican victories is that he
weakens his own criticisms of immigration.
Since NAFTA was implemented,
migration from Mexico to
the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately
drove them away from agriculture.
As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact,
per capita GDP is nearly a flat
line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures
that have been implemented, the
US leads the world .
To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims
he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only
when the US reaps the greater share of benefits.
His arguments with respect to Canada are akin to those of a looter or raider. He wants to block lumber imports from Canada, at
the same time as he wants to break the Canadian dairy market wide open to absorb US excess production. That approach is at the core
of what defined the US as a "new empire" in the 1800s. In addition, while Trump was quick to tear up the TPP, he has said nothing
about TISA and TTIP.
Mexico
Trump's argument with Mexico is also disturbing for what it implies. It would seem that any
evidence of production
in Mexico causes Trump concern. Mexico should not only keep its people -- however many are displaced by US imports -- but it should
also be as dependent as possible on the US for everything except oil. Since Trump has consistently declared his antagonism to OPEC,
ideally Mexico's oil would be sold for a few dollars per barrel.
China
Trump's turn on China almost provoked laughter from his many domestic critics. Absurdly, what figures prominently in most renditions
of the story of Trump's change on China (including his own), is a big piece of chocolate cake. The missile strike on Syria was, according
to Wilbur Ross, the "
after-dinner entertainment ". Here, Trump's loud condemnations of China on trade issues were suddenly quelled -- and it is not
because chocolate has magical properties. Instead it seems Trump has been willing to settle on
selling out citizens' interests , and
particularly those who voted for him, in return for China's assistance on North Korea. Let's be clear: countering and dominating
North Korea is an established favourite among neoconservatives. Trump's priority here is fully "neocon," and the submergence of trade
issues in favour of militaristic preferences is the one case where neoconservatives might be distinguished from the otherwise identical
neoliberals.
North Korea
Where North Korea is concerned, Trump chose to manufacture a "
crisis ". North Korea has actually done nothing
to warrant a sudden outbreak of panic over it being supposedly aggressive and threatening. North Korea is no more aggressive than
any person defending their survival can be called belligerent. The constant series of US military exercises in South Korea, or near
North Korean waters, is instead a deliberate provocation to a state whose existence the US nearly extinguished. Even last year the
US Air Force publicly boasted of having
"nearly destroyed" North Korea -- language one would have expected from the Luftwaffe in WWII. The US continues to maintain roughly
60,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, and continues to refuse to formally declare an end to the Korean War and
sign a peace treaty
. Trump then announced he was sending an "armada" to the Korean peninsula, and boasted of how "very powerful" it was. This was in
addition to the US deploying the THAAD missile system in South Korea. Several of his messages in Twitter were written using highly
provocative and threatening language. When asked if he would start a war, Trump glibly replied: "
I don't know. I mean, we'll see ". On another occasion Trump stated, "There is a chance that we could end up having a
major, major conflict with North
Korea. Absolutely". When the world's leading military superpower declares its intention to destroy you, then there is nothing you
can do in your defense which anyone could justly label as "over the top". Otherwise, once again Trump posed as a parental figure,
the world's chief babysitter -- picture Trump, surrounded by children taking part in the "Easter egg roll" at the White House, being
asked about North Korea and responding "they gotta behave". Trump would presume to teach manners to North Korea, using the only tools
of instruction that seem to be the first and last resort of US foreign policy (and the "defense" industry): bombs.
Syria
Attacking Syria , on purportedly humanitarian grounds, is for many (including vocal supporters) one of the most glaring contradictions
of Trump's campaign statements about not embroiling the US in failed wars of regime change and world policing. During the campaign,
he was in favour of Russia's collaboration with Syria in the fight against ISIS. For years he had condemned Obama for involving the
US in Syria, and consistently opposed military intervention there. All that was consigned to the archive of positions Trump declared
to now be worthless. That there had been a change in Trump's position is not a matter of dispute --
Trump made the point himself :
"I like to think of myself as a very flexible person. I don't have to have one specific way, and if the world changes, I go
the same way, I don't change. Well, I do change and I am flexible, and I'm proud of that flexibility. And I will tell you, that
attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me -- big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I've been watching
it and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that. And I have that flexibility, and it's very, very possible -- and I will
tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much. And if you look back over the last
few weeks, there were other attacks using gas. You're now talking about a whole different level".
Bending to the will of the prevailing Cold War and neo-McCarthyist atmosphere in the US, rife with anti-Russian conspiracy theories,
Trump found an easy opportunity to score points with the hostile media, ever so mindful as he is about approval ratings, polls, and
media coverage. Some explain Trump's reversals as arising from his
pursuit
of
public adulation -- and while the media play the key role in purveying celebrity status, they are also a stiff bastion of imperialist
culture. Given his many years as a the host of a popular TV show, and as the owner of the Miss Universe Pageant, there is some logical
merit to the argument. But I think even more is at work, as explained in paragraphs above.
According to Eric Trump it was at the urging of Ivanka that Donald Trump decided to strike a humanitarian-militarist pose. He
would play the part of the Victorian parent, only he would use missiles to teach unruly children lessons about violence. Using language
typically used against him by the mainstream media, Trump now felt entitled to pontificate that Assad is "evil," an "
animal ," who would
have
to go . When did he supposedly come to this realization? Did Assad become evil at the same time Trump was inaugurated? Why would
Trump have kept so silent about "evil" on the campaign trail? Trump of course is wrong: it's not that the world changed and he changed
with it; rather, he invented a new fiction to suit his masked intentions. Trump's supposed opponents and critics, like the Soros-funded
organizer of the women's march Linda Sarsour, showed her
approval of even more drastic
action by endorsing messages by what sounded like a stern school mistress who thought that 59 cruise missiles were just a mere "slap
on the wrist". Virtually every neocon who is publicly active applauded Trump, as did most senior Democrats. The loudest
opposition
, however, came from Trump's
own base , with a number of articles
featuring criticism from Trump's
supporters , and one conservative publication calling him outright a "
weakling
and a political ingrate ".
Members of the Trump administration have played various word games with the public on intervention in Syria. From unnamed officials
saying the missile strike was a "one off," to named officials
promising more if there
were any other suspected chemical attacks (or use of barrel bombs -- and this while the US dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in
existence on Afghanistan); some said that
regime change was not the goal,
and then others made it clear that was the ultimate
goal ; and then Trump saying, "Our policy is the same, it hasn't changed.
We're not going into Syria " -- even
though
Trump himself greatly increased the number of US troops he deployed to Syria , illegally, in an escalation of the least
protested invasion in recent history. Now we should know enough not to count this as mere ambiguity, but as deliberate obfuscation
that offers momentary (thinly veiled) cover for a
renewal of neocon policy .
We can draw an outline of Trump's liberal imperialism when it comes to Syria, which is likely to be applied elsewhere. First,
Trump's interventionist policy regarding Syria is one that continues to treat that country as if it were terra nullius ,
a mere playground for superpower politics. Second, Trump is clearly continuing with the
neoconservative agenda and its hit list of
states to be terminated by US military action, as famously confirmed by Gen. Wesley Clark. Even Trump's strategy for justifying the
attack on Syria echoed the two prior Bush presidential administrations -- selling war with the infamous "incubator babies" myth and
the myth of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). In many ways, Trump's presidency is thus shaping up to be either the seventh term
of the George H.W. Bush regime, or the fifth straight term of the George W. Bush regime. Third, Trump is taking ownership of an extremely
dangerous conflict, with costs that could surpass anything witnessed by the war on Iraq (which also continues). Fourth, by highlighting
the importance of photographs in allegedly changing his mind, Trump has placed a high market value on propaganda featuring dead babies.
His actions in Syria will now create an effective demand for the pornographic trade in pictures of atrocities. These are matters
of great importance to the transnational capitalist class, which demands full global penetrability, diminished state power (unless
in the service of this class' goals), a uniformity of expectations and conformity in behaviour, and an emphasis on individual civil
liberties which are the basis for defending private property and consumerism.
Venezuela
It is very disturbing to see how Venezuela is being framed as ripe for US intervention, in ways that distinctly echo the lead
up to the US war on Libya. Just as disturbing is that Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, has a clear conflict of interest
regarding Venezuela, from his recent role as CEO of
Exxon
and its conflict with the government of Venezuela over its nationalization of oil. Tillerson is, by any definition, a clear-cut
member of the transnational capitalist class. The Twitter account of the
State
Department has a battery of messages sternly lecturing Venezuela about the treatment of protesters, while also pontificating
on the Venezuelan Constitution as if the US State Department had become a global supreme court. What is impressive is the seamless
continuity in the nature of the messages on Venezuela from that account, as if no change of government happened between Obama's time
and Trump's. Nikki Haley, Trump's neocon ambassador to the UN, issued
a statement that read like it had been written by her predecessors, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, a statement which in itself
is an unacceptable intervention in Venezuelan internal affairs. For Trump's part, from just days
before the election, to a couple of weeks
after his inauguration, he has sent explicit
messages of support for anti-government
forces in Venezuela. In February, Trump
imposed sanctions on Venezuela's
Vice President. After Syria and North Korea, Venezuela is seeming the likely focus of US interventionism under Trump.
NATO
Rounding out the picture, at least for now (this was just the first hundred days of Trump's presidency), was Trump's outstanding
reversal on NATO -- in fact, once again he stated the reversal himself, and without explanation either: "
I said it was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete ". This came just days after the US missile strike against Syria, and just as
Ivanka Trump was about to represent
his government at a meeting of globalist women, the
W20 . NATO has served as
the transnational military alliance at the service of the transnational capitalist class, and particularly the military and political
members of the TCC. 7
Saving Neoliberalism?
Has Trump saved neoliberal capitalism from its ongoing demise? Has he sustained popular faith in liberal political ideals? Are
we still in the dying days of liberalism
? If there had been a centrally coordinated plan to plant an operative among the ranks of populist conservatives and independents,
to channel their support for nationalism into support for the persona of the plant, and to then have that plant steer a course straight
back to shoring up neoliberal globalism -- then we might have had a wonderful story of a masterful conspiracy, the biggest heist
in the history of elections anywhere. A truly "rigged system" could be expected to behave that way. Was Trump designated to take
the fall in a rigged game, only his huge ego got in the way when he realized he could realistically win the election and he decided
to really tilt hard against his partner, Hillary Clinton? It could be the basis for a novel, or a Hollywood political comedy. I have
no way of knowing if it could be true.
Framed within the terms of what we do know, there was relief by the ousted group of political elites and the liberal globalist
media at the sight of Trump's reversals, and a sense that
their vision had been vindicated.
However, if they are hoping that the likes of Trump will serve as a reliable flag bearer, then theirs is a misguided wishful thinking.
If someone so demonized and ridiculed, tarnished as an evil thug and racist fascist, the subject of mass demonstrations in the US
and abroad, is the latest champion of (neo)liberalism, then we are certainly witnessing its dying days.
Is Trump Beneficial for Anti-Imperialism?
Once one is informed enough and thus prepared to understand that anti-imperialism is not the exclusive preserve of the left (a
left which anyway has mostly shunned it over the last two decades), that it
did not originate with the
left , and that it has a long and distinguished history
in the US itself , then we can move
toward some interesting realizations. The facts, borne out by surveys and my own online immersion among pro-Trump social media users,
is that one of the
significantreasons
why Trump won is due to the growth in popularity of basic anti-imperialist principles (even if not recognized under that name): for
example, no more world policing, no transnational militarization, no more interventions abroad, no more regime change, no war, and
no globalism. Nationalists in Europe, as in Russia, have also pushed forward a basic anti-imperialist vision. Whereas in Latin America
anti-imperialism is largely still leftist, in Europe and North America the left-right divide has become blurred, but the crucial
thing is that at least now we can speak of anti-imperialism gaining strength in these three major continents. Resistance against
globalization has been the primary objective, along with strengthening national sovereignty, protecting local cultural identity,
and opposing free trade and transnational capital. Unfortunately, some anti-imperialist writers (on the left in fact) have tended
to restrict their field of vision to military matters primarily, while almost completely neglecting the economic and cultural, and
especially domestic dimensions of imperialism. (I am grossly generalizing of course, but I think it is largely accurate.) Where structures
such as NAFTA are concerned, many of these same leftist anti-imperialists, few as they are, have had virtually nothing to say. It
could be that they have yet to fully recognize that the transnational capitalist class has, gradually over the last seven decades,
essentially purchased the power of US imperialism. Therefore the TCC's imperialism includes NAFTA, just as it includes open borders,
neoliberal identity politics, and drone strikes. They are all different parts of the same whole.
As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son --
then what an abysmally poor choice he is. 8
On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism,
which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now
contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced.
In addition to that, given that his candidacy aggravated internal divisions in the US, which have not subsided with his assumption
of office, these domestic social and cultural conflicts cause a serious deficit of legitimacy, a loss of political capital. A declining
economy will also deprive him of capital in the strict sense. Moreover, given the kind of persona the media have crafted, the daily
caricaturing of Trump will significantly spur anti-Americanism around the world. If suddenly even Canadian academics are talking
about boycotting the US, then the worm has truly turned. Trump can only rely on "hard power" (military violence), because "soft power"
is almost out of the question now that Trump has been constructed as a barbarian. Incompetent and/or undermined governance will also
render Trump a deficient upholder of the status quo. The fact that nationalist movements around the world are not centrally coordinated,
and their fortunes are not pinned to those of Trump, establishes a well-defined limit to his influence. Trump's antagonism toward
various countries -- as wholes -- has already helped to stir up a deep sediment of anti-Americanism. If Americanism is at the heart
of Trump's nationalist globalism, then it is doing all the things that are needed to induce a major heart attack.
As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism
. Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner
in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics.
As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power
of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation
of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition.
Imagine the response of the USA Goobermint if, in an obverse scenario of the Venezuelan
fiasco, the Roosians and Chai-nese decided Trump was an undemocratic dictator and declared
they are depositing all USA payments they owe into Bernie Sander's accounts?
Oh, I'm sorry, bad analogy: unlike Guaido, Sanders actually ran and would be hanging
around the oval office if we had a democracy.
I note by other sources "Acting President of The United State", John Bolton, has stated he
will send President Murado to Gitmo .....Apparently, a coup took place and Trump has been
demoted from Chief Moron to Acting Moron of the United States.
Expect the Venezuelan White Helmets to appear real soon. This "project" is being run using
the same plan as Syria. This means that shortly there will be reports that the Bolivarian
government has used chemical weapons it doesn't have against the "freedom fighters".
"... with minor exceptions the 5 eye countries are no different.. ..."
"... His History has often been applied as analogous to the post-cold war era, with the US empire usually compared to the arrogant, bullying, tyrannical, over-stretched Athenian empire. The speeches of the Corinthian and Theban ambassadors trying to convince Sparta to join them in war could be transposed almost word for word to anyone who fiercely opposes the empire today. ..."
"... Interesting times, or as one source said today, an Arch Duke moment could well be here. ..."
"... Why Venezuela? Why now? We've looked at these questions before. The answer to the first is, I think, most interesting: It represents a return of the Empire to its natural sphere of influence. It is as untenable for Russia to control Venezuela as it is for the US to run Ukraine. Or Syria. Or Afghanistan, for that matter. ..."
This article at https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/29/the-empires-propagandists/
may be of interest to some. Not saying that any of it is new to readers here nor is it
exhaustive but imo a decent piece that pulls together a lot and might be interesting to those
who mainly follow MSM.
An extract:
"The ruling class of the US imperium will simply not tolerate any government that opposes
its financial and geopolitical dominance, attempts socialism, or transfers its nexus to
another powerful state entity, like Russia or China for instance. If one chooses to do so it
is instantly targeted for assault either by crippling economic sanctions or embargoes, which
make governance nearly impossible and primarily harms the general population, or covert
subversion, or by direct and indirect military intervention. And the corporate media, when it
chooses to cover these issues, generally parrots State Department and Pentagon talking points
and obfuscations about the intentions of the US government, the role of corporations and
global capitalism, and the character of the governments the US happens to be opposing at the
time. And all of this is done with virtually no historical analysis. But of course none of
this is new."
It is interesting, the seeming rush to mess with Venezuela.
I guess whether it was in fact rushed, depends on how much we want to believe the data we are
fed.
I believe it was and suspect that that was the reason for resumption of operation of the
government - to support the intervention in Venezuela. Otherwise, it seemed like too sudden a
reversal by Trump.
I think in their analysis of where to intervene next, they look at an array of
factors:
Venezuela is weak
Venezuela espouses something like socialism
Venezuela has been associating with unsavory "competitors"
Venezuela is nearby (and very nearby our asset, Colombia)
Venezuela can be portrayed as in need of humanitarian intervention
Maduro has said some unkind things about U.S. government (Bush)
Venezuela holds a grand prize
In there discusions, I assume the issue of right/wrong is not mentioned.
Imagine someone attempting to raise the issue:
- But what will the media say?
- But what will the U.N. say?
- But what will the Pope say?
- But what will the voters say?
- But what will the other party say?
- But is it really the moral thing to do, what would God say?
with minor exceptions the 5 eye countries are no different..
i suppose the main
difference is not being served up a regular diet of 'we are the greatest' bs, accounts for
some of it.. the general curiousity about what the fuck is going on outside of the usa seems
sorely lacking in people who live in the usa... maybe the media can be blamed for a chunk of
this... generally canucks know a lot more about the usa, then the usa people know about
canada.. that is something i have witnessed in my life.. but, the simple answer to your
question is there isn't a lot of difference.. and yes - trudeau senior must be really
disappointed in tru dope jr... he is nothing compared to his dad... canada is on a downhill
trajectory and fast with this buffoon.. i expect worse in the next election too.. we will get
our trump as we are one cycle behind..
His History has often been applied as analogous to the post-cold war era, with the US
empire usually compared to the arrogant, bullying, tyrannical, over-stretched Athenian
empire. The speeches of the Corinthian and Theban ambassadors trying to convince Sparta to
join them in war could be transposed almost word for word to anyone who fiercely opposes the
empire today.
Also, similar to some who get impatient with the seeming over-conservatism of Russia and
China today, so the aggressive, hot-headed Corinthians and Thebans often get frustrated with
the more conservative Spartans.
I wonder when/if there'll be an American version of the Athenians' disastrous Sicilian
expedition.
Attached to that Venezuelanalysis.com that CE linked to @ 2 was this odd piece of
information:
"EREPLA deal "unusually favourable to foreign company"
... [A] 25-year deal was signed with unknown US based firm EREPLA in November 2018,
which has been described by financial firm Argus as "unusually favourable" to the US
company.
Little is known of EREPLA or its board of directors, with Reuters claiming that Harry
Sargeant III, magnate and ex-Financial Chairman of the US Republican Party, is one of their
owners. The small company, which was only legally registered in the US on November 8,
2018, a mere day before signing the PDVSA deal, has managed to extract a contract from PDVSA
which revives a number of practices, previously eliminated in the Chavez-era, of oil
so-called service contracts. PDVSA is yet to make any official comment on the deal, and analysts have already expressed concern that the deal violates Venezuela's 2001
Hydrocarbons Law.
The deal, which is extendable for a further 15 years, is due to bring US $500 million
of investment to the Tia Juana, Rosa Mediano fields in Maracaibo Lake and the Ayacucho 5
field in the Orinoco Belt. It assigns 49.9 percent of the new mixed company to EREPLA, and
passes 100 percent of the output to the US firm, which is expected to repatriate 50.1 percent
of sale profits back to PDVSA.
Day to day running, purchasing, exporting, and the sale of the oil produced is to be
completely controlled by EREPLA, except in the case of fulfilling PDVSA's hefty oil quota to
China, which will be agreed upon by both parts.
Whilst EREPLA is due to supply the rigs and crews for the fields, other costs will be
split between the two partners, whilst the US firm find themselves exempt from Venezuelan
labour laws under the Service Contract clause, as well as from paying its share of the 30
percent oil royalty which PDVSA is due to cover.
"We believe that the new model created in this agreement is in the national interest of
the United States," stated a Harry Sargeant Oil Management Group lawyer who signed the
documents on behalf of EREPLA.
An EREPLA statement on the deal describes how it looks to "revitalise" Venezuela's oil
industry. It goes on to explain that new terms and conditions have been applied as previous
contracts "fermented corruption and bad management." EREPLA also argued that the deal will
help prevent "US adversaries" such as Chinese and Russian firms from gaining further ground
in the oil-rich country.
It is unclear at this point how the new deal will function in light of US financial
sanctions against Caracas, as a license from the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
is still pending, but the statement assures that the company's work "will be carried out in
accordance with the economic sanctions enforced by the U.S. Treasury Department."
Oil deals in Venezuela were notoriously favourable to foreign firms until 2001, in
terms of profit [repatriation], labour laws, running costs, and local accountability, until
Hugo Chavez' Hydrocarbons Law broke the tradition, ensuring Venezuelan control over joint
ventures. Another Chavez decree in 2007 capped foreign participation in oil deals at 40
percent. However, in December 2017 the National Constituent Assembly approved a "Foreign
Investment Law" meant to improve conditions for foreign capital investments in
Venezuela.
A company that is incorporated only a day before it signs a major oil extraction and
production deal (parts of which violate Venezuela's own laws governing working conditions and
pay for Venezuelan workers and national control over joint ventures) with Venezuela? Does
anyone else not smell a rat?
What could PDVSA have been thinking? Did it not enter their
heads that EREPLA could be a front acting for elements in the US government?
Venezeula has become the tipping point for loss of GRC for the USD.
Venezeulan oil is being shipped to India, refined by the new Rosneft refinery then being
sold in anything but USD.
Added to the now over 100 country's that are rejecting the USD by using bi-lateral trade,
KSA already selling in yuan, the desperation of Uncle Scam is palpable.
Interesting times, or as one source said today, an Arch Duke moment could well be here.
Why Venezuela? Why now?
We've looked at these questions before. The answer to the first is, I think, most
interesting:
It represents a return of the Empire to its natural sphere of influence. It is as untenable
for Russia to control Venezuela as it is for the US to run Ukraine. Or Syria. Or Afghanistan,
for that matter.
It seems to me that the major blocs might be pulling back, and settling for easy gains.
Not that this coup is likely to be easy, it may prove to be impossible. It may even prove to
be the spark that sets Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil and the rest of Latin America alight.
But the way the clowns in the White House- who haven't had a new idea since 1981-see it all
resources will be mobilised to make the region safe for imperialism: Venezuela, Cuba,
Nicaragua and Bolivia: in the proverbial cross hairs.
The second question |Why now?) could be a reflection of the fact that the neo-conservative
axis has only recently re-established full spectrum domination over the White House. As the
Hitler Youth Freeland has been hinting: the running in this matter has been made by the Lima
Group in which Canada has been playing a leading and thoroughly despicable role. It was they
who did the pseudo legalistic groundwork for the coup. No doubt Bolton et al found it
convenient to have the Lima group demands presented to it on a plate. That meant that even
Ponce, who together with Bolton and Pompeo takes the role of the Three Weird Sisters in this
tragedy, could trigger the crisis with a phone call to Guido. Whose role is clearly to be
martyred, probably by a CIA sniper, so that he can die, if not for his country at least for
its corrupt elites.
We've seen this movie before.
Melians. As we think, at any rate, it is expedient--we speak as we are obliged, since
you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest -- that you should not destroy
what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is
fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid. And you are as much
interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an
example for the world to meditate upon.
Athenians. The end of our empire, if end it should, does not frighten us: a rival
empire like Lacedaemon, even if Lacedaemon was our real antagonist, is not so terrible to the
vanquished as subjects who by themselves attack and overpower their rulers. This, however, is
a risk that we are content to take. We will now proceed to show you that we are come here in
the interest of our empire, and that we shall say what we are now going to say, for the
preservation of your country; as we would fain exercise that empire over you without trouble,
and see you preserved for the good of us both.
Melians. And how, pray, could it turn out as good for us to serve as for you to
rule?
Athenians. Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the
worst, and we should gain by not destroying you.
Melians . So that you would not consent to our being neutral, friends instead of
enemies, but allies of neither side.
Athenians. No; for your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be
an argument to our subjects of our weakness, and your enmity of our power.
Melians. Is that your subjects' idea of equity, to put those who have nothing to do
with you in the same category with peoples that are most of them your own colonists, and some
conquered rebels?
Athenians. As far as right goes they think one has as much of it as the other, and
that if any maintain their independence it is because they are strong, and that if we do not
molest them it is because we are afraid; so that besides extending our empire we should gain
in security by your subjection; the fact that you are islanders and weaker than others
rendering it all the more important that you should not succeed in baffling the masters of
the sea.
Melians. But do you consider that there is no security in the policy which we
indicate? For here again if you debar us from talking about justice and invite us to obey
your interest, we also must explain ours, and try to persuade you, if the two happen to
coincide. How can you avoid making enemies of all existing neutrals who shall look at case
from it that one day or another you will attack them? And what is this but to make greater
the enemies that you have already, and to force others to become so who would otherwise have
never thought of it?
Athenians. Why, the fact is that continentals generally give us but little alarm;
the liberty which they enjoy will long prevent their taking precautions against us; it is
rather islanders like yourselves, outside our empire, and subjects smarting under the yoke,
who would be the most likely to take a rash step and lead themselves and us into obvious
danger.
Melians. Well then, if you risk so much to retain your empire, and your subjects to
get rid of it, it were surely great baseness and cowardice in us who are still free not to
try everything that can be tried, before submitting to your yoke.
Athenians. Not if you are well advised, the contest not being an equal one, with
honour as the prize and shame as the penalty, but a question of self-preservation and of not
resisting those who are far stronger than you are...
Free market is possible only under strict government regulation. Without government regulation free market quickly
deteriorates into the law of jungles. Such a paradox ;-)
And if financial oligarchy gets to power as they got via coup d'état in the USA in late 7th, it is only a matter of time before
the society collapses. They are very destructive to the society at large. Probably more so then organized crime. But wait. They
actually can be viewed as special type of organized prime as is "The best way to rob the bank is to own it".
Notable quotes:
"... Idiots on here are always going on about how we don't got capitalism, if we only had capitalism, we don't got free markets, if only we had free markets, then everything would be hunky-dory. Without any proof, of course, because there never was and never will be a "free" "market." The US has plenty capitalism. And everything sucks. And they want more. Confused, stupid, disingenuous liars. ..."
"... Free markets are crookedness factories. As a PhD from Chicago Business School told me, "Free markets?! What free markets?! There is no free market! It's all crooked!" ..."
Idiots on here are always going on about how we don't got capitalism, if we only had
capitalism, we don't got free markets, if only we had free markets, then everything would be
hunky-dory. Without any proof, of course, because there never was and never will be a "free"
"market." The US has plenty capitalism. And everything sucks. And they want more. Confused,
stupid, disingenuous liars.
Look, what you call "capitalism" and "free markets" just means scams to make rich people
richer. You read some simple-minded description of some pie-in-the-sky theory of some perfect
world where rational actors make the best possible decisions in their own interest without
any outside interference, and you actually think you are reading a description of something
real.
I'll tell you what's real. Crookedness. Free markets are crookedness factories. As a
PhD from Chicago Business School told me, "Free markets?! What free markets?! There is no
free market! It's all crooked!"
"... They got around lending regulations by calling what they did "merchant cash advances," not loans -- a distinction judges recognize though there's little practical difference. ..."
Look out, the stranger on the phone warned. They're coming for you.
The caller had Janelle Duncan's attention. Perpetually peppy at 53, with sparkly jewelry and a glittery manicure, Duncan was running
a struggling Florida real estate agency with her husband, Doug. She began each day in prayer, a vanilla latte in her hand and her
Maltese Shih Tzu, Coco, on her lap, asking God for business to pick up.
She'd answered the phone that Friday morning in January hoping it would be a new client looking for a home in the Tampa suburbs.
The man identified himself as a debt counselor. He described a bizarre legal proceeding that he said was targeting Duncan without
her knowledge. A lender called ABC had filed a court judgment against her in the state of New York and was planning to seize her
possessions. "I'm not sure if they already froze your bank accounts, but they are RIGHT NOW moving to do just that," he'd written
in an email earlier that day. He described the lender as "EXTREMLY AGGRESSIVE." Her only hope, the man said, was to pull all her
money out of the bank immediately.
His story sounded fishy to the Duncans. They had borrowed $36,762 from a company called ABC Merchant Solutions LLC, but as far
as they knew they were paying the money back on schedule. Doug dialed his contact there and was assured all was well. They checked
with a lawyer; he was skeptical, too. What kind of legal system would allow all that to happen 1,000 miles away without notice or
a hearing? They shrugged off the warning as a scam.
But the caller was who he said he was, and everything he predicted came true. The following Monday, Doug logged in at the office
to discover he no longer had access to his bank accounts. A few days on, $52,886.93 disappeared from one of them. The loss set off
a chain of events that culminated a month later in financial ruin. Not long after her agency went bankrupt, Janelle collapsed and
was rushed to the hospital, vomiting bile.
As the Duncans soon learned, tens of thousands of contractors, florists, and other small-business owners nationwide were being
chewed up by the same legal process. Behind it all was a group of financiers who lend money at interest rates higher than those once
demanded by Mafia loan sharks. Rather than breaking legs, these lenders have co-opted New York's court system and turned it into
a high-speed debt-collection machine. Government officials enable the whole scheme. A few are even getting rich doing it.
Janelle and Doug Duncan
"Somebody just comes in and rips everything out. It's cannibalized our whole life"
The lenders' weapon of choice is an arcane legal document called a confession of judgment. Before borrowers get a loan, they have
to sign a statement giving up their right to defend themselves if the lender takes them to court. It's like an arbitration agreement,
except the borrower always loses. Armed with a confession, a lender can, without proof, accuse borrowers of not paying and legally
seize their assets before they know what's happened. Not surprisingly, some lenders have abused this power. In dozens of interviews
and court pleadings, borrowers describe lenders who've forged documents, lied about how much they were owed, or fabricated defaults
out of thin air.
"Somebody just comes in and rips everything out," Doug said one evening in August, pulling up a stool at a Starbucks and recounting
the events that killed the Duncans' business. After a long day spent selling houses for another company, the name tag pinned to his
shirt had flipped upside down like a distress signal. "It's cannibalized our whole life."
Confessions of judgment have been part of English common law since the Middle Ages, intended as a way to enforce debts without
the fuss and expense of trial. Concerns about their potential abuse are almost as old. In Charles Dickens's 1837 novel The Pickwick
Papers , a landlady who's tricked into signing one
ends up in debtors' prison . Some U.S. states outlawed confessions in the middle of the 20th century, and federal regulators
banned them for
consumer loans in 1985. But New York still allows them for business loans.
For David Glass, they were the solution to a problem: People were stealing his money. Among the hustlers and con men who work
the bottom rungs of Wall Street, Glass is a legend. Before he was 30, he'd inspired the stock-scam movie
Boiler Room . Later busted by the FBI for insider trading,
he avoided prison by recording incriminating tapes of his old colleagues. Even his enemies say Glass, who declined to comment for
this story, is one of the sharpest operators they've ever dealt with.
In 2009, while still on probation, Glass and a friend named Isaac Stern started a company called Yellowstone Capital LLC. (ABC,
the firm that wiped out the Duncans, is one of more than a dozen corporate names used by Yellowstone's sales force.) Operating out
of a red-walled office above an Irish bar in New York's financial district, these salespeople phoned bodegas and pizzerias and pitched
their owners on loans. The rates sometimes exceeded 400 percent a year, and daily payments were required, but borrowers were desperate.
... ... ...
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, banks were cutting back on lending just when small businesses most needed cash. Companies
such as Yellowstone stepped in. They got around lending regulations by calling what they did "merchant cash advances," not loans
-- a distinction judges recognize
though there's little practical difference. The same people who'd pushed stock swindles in the 1990s and subprime mortgages a
decade later started talking small businesses into taking on costly debt. The
profits were
huge , and the industry grew. Last year it extended about $15 billion in credit,
according to an estimate by investment bank Bryant Park Capital.
Yellowstone would hire anyone who could sell. A nightclub bouncer sat next to ultra-Orthodox Jews fresh out of religious school.
The best brokers earned tens of thousands of dollars a month, former employees say; others slept at the office, fought, sold loose
cigarettes, and stole from each other. A video posted on YouTube
shows Glass firing an employee. "Get the f--- out of my firm," he yells. "Why are you still sitting there, fat ass? Get out of
my company!" To keep the troops focused, management would
stack a pile of cash on a
table and hold a drawing for closers.
Glass's problem was that some borrowers took Yellowstone's money with no intention of paying it back. Lawsuits against deadbeats
proved pointless, dragging on for months or years. Then a lawyer who worked for Yellowstone and other cash-advance outfits came up
with the idea of requiring borrowers to sign confessions of judgment before receiving their loans. That way, at the first sign of
trouble, lenders could start seizing assets, catching borrowers unawares.
In May 2012, Yellowstone became what appears to be the first company in the industry to file a confession in court. Others copied
the trick. The innovation didn't just make collections easier; it upended the industry's economics. Now, even if a borrower defaulted,
a company stood a chance of making a full recovery. By tacking on extra fees, it might even make more money, and faster, than if
the borrower had never missed a payment. In some cases, the collections process became a profit engine.
Confessions aren't enforceable in Florida, where the Duncans signed theirs. But New York's courts are especially friendly to confessions
and will accept them from anywhere, so lenders require customers to sign documents allowing them to file there. That's turned the
state into the industry's collections department. Cash-advance companies have secured more than 25,000 judgments in New York since
2012, mostly in the past two years, according to data on more than 350 lenders compiled by Bloomberg Businessweek . Those judgments
are worth an estimated $1.5 billion. The biggest filer by far, with a quarter of the cases: Yellowstone Capital.
The Duncans' ordeal began in November 2017 with an unsolicited fax from a broker promising term loans of as much as $1 million
at a cheap rate. The couple had owned their agency, a Re/Max franchise, for three years and now had 50 employees, but they still
weren't turning a profit. A planned entry into the mortgage business was proving more expensive than expected. Doing some quick math,
Doug figured he could borrow $800,000 to fund the expansion, pay off some debt, and come out with a lower monthly payment. The spam
fax felt like a gift from God.
On the phone, the broker said that to qualify for a big loan, Doug would first have to accept a smaller amount and make a few
payments as a tryout. He sent over the paperwork for a cash advance, not a term loan -- and included confessions for both Doug and
Janelle to sign. Without talking to a lawyer, they did. Why not? Doug thought. They intended to pay the money back on time.
The advance turned out to be for $36,762, repaid in $800 daily debits from their bank account starting the day after they got
the money. This would continue for about three months, until they'd repaid $59,960, amounting to an annualized interest rate of more
than 350 percent. A small price to pay, Doug figured -- soon he'd have all the money he needed in cheaper, longer-term debt. But
when he followed up the next month to inquire about the status of the bigger loan, he got no response. The trouble started soon after.
A few hours after learning that their bank accounts had been frozen, the Duncans met with a local attorney, Jeffrey Dowd, in a
law office squeezed between a nail salon and a transmission shop. Their bank, SunTrust, refused to tell them who was behind the freeze.
It wasn't clear why Yellowstone would target them. Their contact there was still pleading ignorance; the lender had collected its
$800 payment as recently as the previous business day. Janelle was on the verge of tears.
A broad-shouldered man with a white goatee, Dowd handles everything from wills to lawsuits for small-business owners in the Tampa
suburbs. After assuring the Duncans he'd get to the bottom of it, he logged on to his computer. He soon found a legal website showing
that Yellowstone
had won a judgment against the Duncans a few hours after Janelle received the warning phone call. The lender had gone to a court
in the village of Goshen, 60 miles north of New York City.
"I hereby confess judgment," read the documents Doug and Janelle had signed. Attached was a statement signed by the same person
at Yellowstone who'd assured Doug everything was fine. It said the Duncans had stopped making payments.
That wasn't true. The Duncans' bank records show that Yellowstone had continued to get its daily $800 even after going to court.
The company's sworn statement also inflated the size of the couple's debt. But by the time Dowd found the case, it was already over.
A clerk had approved the judgment less than a day after Yellowstone's lawyer asked for it. No proof was demanded, no judge was involved,
and the Duncans didn't have a chance to present their side in court.
Beau Phillips, a Yellowstone spokesman, said in an email to Businessweek that the company was within its rights, because the Duncans
had blocked one payment and never made up for it. The Duncans respond that if a block had taken place, it must have been a computer
error. Why stop paying and then resume the next day?
The court papers revealed the name of Yellowstone's lawyer, and on a whim, Dowd searched for her other cases and found more than
1,500 results. The Duncans' predicament was no aberration. "It was like a rabbit hole," Dowd says. He dove in, clicking on case after
case after case.
The Long Reach of a Rubber Stamp In one month, a single clerk's office in Orange County, New York, issued 176 judgments against
small businesses in 38 states and Puerto Rico
... ... ...
Note: Judgments issued based on merchant cash-advance filings in Orange County in July 2018 Source: Bloomberg News analysis
of New York State Unified Court System documents
Goshen, N.Y., is a bucolic stop on the harness-racing circuit, just west of the Hudson River. Not far from the track, in the Orange
County Clerk's office, women with ID lanyards around their necks sit behind Plexiglas windows, processing pistol permits and recording
deeds. One clerk prints out proposed judgments sent electronically by cash-advance companies and makes them official with three rubber
stamps.
Orange is one of a handful of counties in upstate New York that together handle an outsize share of the nation's cash-advance
collections. Industry lawyers pick offices known to sign judgments quickly; there's no need for the borrower or lender to have a
connection to the area. In even smaller Ontario County, cash-advance filings make up about three-quarters of the civil caseload.
No matter how abusive the confessions might be, clerks have no choice but to continue processing them, says Kelly Eskew, a deputy
clerk in Orange County.
To obtain a judgment, a lawyer for a cash-advance company must send in the confession along with a sworn affidavit explaining
the default and how much is still owed. The clerk accepts the statement as fact and enters a judgment without additional review.
Once signed, this judgment is almost impossible to overturn. Borrowers rarely try. Few lawyers will take on a client whose money
is already gone, and getting a ruling can take months -- too long to save a desperate business. It's a trap with no escape.
Clicking around a database of New York state court records, Dowd did find some cases in which cash-advance borrowers had sought
to overturn judgments. They'd almost always failed. New York judges took the view that debtors waived their rights when they signed
the papers. Dowd concluded it would probably cost the Duncans $5,000 to retain a lawyer to travel to Orange County. He advised them
not to bother.
It's possible that if the Duncans had tried to overturn the judgment, they would have discovered that the confessions they'd signed
were later altered. The signed originals contain an apparent drafting error, failing to identify the Duncans' company as subject
to the judgment, a flaw that might have prevented Yellowstone from seizing their money. In the
version filed in
court , someone had replaced the first two pages of each confession with the mistake corrected. Asked by Businessweek about the
discrepancy, Phillips didn't provide an explanation.
Altered Documents The confession of judgment signed by the Duncans ( left top ) and the one filed by Yellowstone in court
Borrowers have accused Yellowstone of forgery before. Just in the past year, a Georgia contractor
presented evidence
in court that a confession used against him was a complete fabrication, and a Maryland trucker complained to Yellowstone that
a key term in his confession had been changed after the fact, as had happened with the Duncans. The company backed off from those
borrowers but faced no further consequences. Phillips declined to comment on the accusations.
While Dowd didn't challenge the ruling against the Duncans in court, he did think he could get SunTrust to help them. He told
the bank that one of the couple's accounts held funds that didn't belong to them because it was used to collect rent on behalf of
landlords. Dowd says a banker at the local branch wanted to help but was overruled by higher-ups. The account remained frozen. A
spokesman for SunTrust declined to comment.
When Dowd finally reached Yellowstone's lawyer, she referred him to a marshal who she said was handling the case. Dowd was confused.
Why would a U.S. marshal be involved? His clients weren't fugitives. He called the phone number, and somebody with a Russian accent
answered.
The person on the phone wasn't a federal official. Dowd had reached the Brooklyn office of Vadim Barbarovich, who holds the title
of New York City marshal. He'd stumbled onto an arcane feature of the city's government that's become another powerful tool for cash-advance
companies.
New York's 35 marshals are government officers, appointed by the mayor, who collect private debts. They evict tenants and tow
cars, city badges dangling from their necks. When they recover money, they get a fee of 5 percent. The office dates to Dutch colonial
days, formed by a decree of
Peter Stuyvesant's council . Fees for the biggest jobs were initially set at a dozen stivers, less than one-tenth the price of
a beaver pelt.
Barbarovich's office is in the immigrant enclave of Sheepshead Bay. Before he was appointed in 2013, he'd tracked inventory at
a Brooklyn hospital and volunteered as a Russian translator. He's now the go-to marshal for the cash-advance business and has gotten
rich in the process. Last year, city records show, he cleared $1.7 million after expenses.
As soon as Yellowstone had obtained its judgment against the Duncans, it had sent a copy to Barbarovich, who issued legal orders
demanding money from Atlanta-based SunTrust and another bank in Alabama where the couple kept their personal funds. By law, New York
marshals' authority is limited to the city's five boroughs, but a loophole vastly extends their reach: They're allowed to demand
out-of-state funds as long as the bank has an office in the city, as SunTrust does. A few big banks refuse to comply with the orders,
but most just hand over their customers' money.
SunTrust proved accommodating. Three days after freezing the Duncans' accounts, it took $52,886.93 and mailed a check to Barbarovich,
enough to satisfy the judgment plus the 5 percent marshal's fee. Almost all of it was rent money the Duncans were holding for landlords,
not their own funds. Barbarovich didn't respond to questions about the couple's case but said in an email that he follows the rules
when issuing a demand for money. Phillips, the Yellowstone spokesman, said no one told the company that the money belonged to third
parties until seven weeks after it was seized. Even then, Yellowstone refused to return it.
The Duncans scrambled to make up the shortfall. Doug got another, larger cash advance from a different company to keep afloat.
The daily payments on that loan were too much for them to handle, though, and they were soon short of cash again. Sensing trouble,
employees fled.
One evening, Janelle thought she was having a heart attack. Her pulse raced, her limbs went numb, and she grew nauseous. An ambulance
rushed her to the hospital. Her heart was fine. Her insurance claim was denied.
Unlike the Duncans, most of the dozens of borrowers interviewed by Businessweek really did fall behind on their debt payments.
Their experiences were no less wrenching. They spoke of divorce, of lost friendships, of unpaid medical bills.
"You can't defend yourself," says Richard Schilg, the owner of a human resources company in Ohio who borrowed hundreds of thousands
of dollars with at least six advances. "As long as you still have a business, as long you have a personal checking account, they're
going to hound you. Your life is ruined by their contract." Schilg says he always tried to honor his debts. But his access to money
has been so restricted by cash-advance judgments that he's had to sell furniture to buy food.
He's one of many borrowers who've received nasty threats from debt collectors. "I will make this my personal business to f---
you," a Yellowstone executive named Steve Davis told Schilg on a voicemail heard by Businessweek . Davis texted another: "I will
watch you crash and burn." Asked about the messages, Davis says, "People defraud us. When that happens we have to do what's best
for us."
Jerry Bush, who ran a plumbing business with his father in Roanoke, Va., signed confessions for at least six cash advances
from companies including Yellowstone, taking one loan after another as his payments mounted to $18,000 a day. In January, Davis called
him while he was accompanying his wife to a chemotherapy appointment and threatened him with the confession in a dispute over payment
terms. Davis denies menacing Bush, but according to Bush's account of their conversation, Davis said he would pursue Bush until his
death and take all of his money, leaving nothing to pay for his wife's treatment. Bush also says Davis then offered to send flowers
to Bush's wife.
Jerry Bush
"I wake up every morning afraid what else they will take. And every morning I throw up blood"
In August, Bush closed his business, laid off his 20 employees, and stopped making payments on his loans. Yellowstone never filed
its signed confession in court, but other lenders went after him over theirs. One sunny day that month, he walked to a wooded area
near his home, swallowed a bottle of an oxycodone painkiller, and began streaming video to Facebook. To anyone who might have been
watching, he explained that he'd taken out cash advances in a failed attempt to save his business. Now the lenders had seized his
accounts, Bush said, his voice wavering. One had even grabbed his father's retirement money.
"I signed 'em, I take the blame for it," he said. "This will be my last video. I am taking this on me." He asked his friends to
take care of his family, then sobbed as he told his wife and teenage son he loved them.
Someone who saw the video alerted the police. They found Bush unconscious in the woods a few hours later -- he credits them with
saving his life. But the pressure from his confessions of judgment hasn't relented. "I wake up every morning afraid what else they
will take," he says. "And every morning I throw up blood."
Bush's contracts with Yellowstone show that the company advanced him a total of about $250,000 and that he paid them back more
than $600,000. Davis, who parted ways with Yellowstone in August, says he didn't mistreat Bush or other borrowers and always followed
the company's protocols. "You know why people put the blame on me is because I'm successful," he says. "It's just haters."
As for the Duncans, each morning at their house still begins with a prayer and a Bible verse. Their retirement savings evaporated
with their agency, but they've been able to keep their house. They continue to believe God has a plan for every one of his children,
but they've learned to trust some of those children less. "If we don't have peace from God, and we live in outrage, it destroys us,"
Janelle says. "So I'm choosing to have hope to start again, and we're relying on the Lord to replace what the enemy has stolen and
turn it around for good."
By seizing their bank deposits, Yellowstone had managed to collect its money ahead of schedule and tack on $9,990 in extra legal
fees, payable to a law firm in which it owns a stake. In about three months, the company and its affiliates almost doubled their
money. At that rate of return, one dollar could be turned into 10 in less than a year.
Everyone else involved in the collection process got a slice, too. SunTrust got a $100 processing fee. Barbarovich's office got
approximately $2,700, with about $120 of that passed along to the city. The Orange County Clerk's office got $41 for its rubber stamps.
The New York state court system got $184.
To date, no state or federal regulator has tried to police the merchant-cash-advance industry. Its lawyers designed it to avoid
scrutiny, sidestepping usury laws and state licensing requirements by keeping the word "loan" out of paperwork and describing the
deals as cash advances against future revenue. And because the customers are technically businesses, not individuals, consumer protection
laws don't apply, either.
With regulators sidelined and lawmakers oblivious, Yellowstone and its peers keep growing. After Glass stepped back a
couple of years ago from day-to-day operations -- his criminal record was making it harder to find investors -- Wall Street investment
bankers arranged a
$120 million line
of credit to finance more advances. In 2016 the company moved from its grimy downtown Manhattan offices to a shiny building in
Jersey City,
pocketing $3 million in state tax incentives . On Instagram, a
top salesman shows off flights on private jets, a diamond-encrusted
watch, and a Lamborghini. Yellowstone advanced $553 million last year, its highest total ever.
A stack of cash about to be raffled off to a lucky Yellowstone employee. SOURCE: FACEBOOK
In April, on the same day Janelle Duncan was selling the last of her office furniture, Yellowstone executives marked the company's
ninth anniversary with a luncheon in Jersey City. In a
celebratory email marking
the occasion, Stern, the co-founder, wrote, "I am continually blown away at the success and achievements we continue to have."
"... So if the US government is secretly releasing Federal prisoners, and if that is the case then American justice is on par with the Mexican penal system, where such occurrences are routine. ..."
The Israelis were extradited to the U.S., where the prosecutor described them as "a predatory group that targeted
elderly people in the U.S., conning them into believing they were lottery winners. Preying on their victims' dreams of financial
comfort, [they] bilked them out of substantial portions of their life savings." According to the
U.S. Attorney's office :
"The defendants operated multiple boiler rooms that used the names of various sham law firms purportedly located in New York,
including law firms named 'Abrahams Kline,' 'Bernstein Schwartz,' 'Steiner, Van Allen, and Colt,' 'Bloomberg and Associates,"
and 'Meyer Stevens.'
The defendants further used various aliases and call forwarding telephone numbers to mask the fact that the
defendants were located in Israel. The defendants also possessed bank accounts in Israel, Cyprus, and Uganda, to which illegal
proceeds were wired."
The ringleaders, Avi Ayache and Yaron Bar, were eventually convicted, and the U.S. prosecutor announced that they would "spend a
substantial portion of their lives in prison." Ayache was sentenced in 2014 to 13 years in prison and Bar to 12. Yet,
prison records indicate the two were released the next year. Other members
of the ring also appear to have been released after extraordinarily little time. If these men did serve only a tiny portion of their
U.S. sentences, as public records and phone calls and emails to the Bureau of Prisons indicate, this may be due to the fact that
Israelis are allowed to be imprisoned in Israel instead of in the U.S. Their sentences then are determined by Israel and, as we will
see below, are often far shorter than they would be in the U.S.
Gery Shalon – hundreds of millions of dollars
In 2015 Gery Shalon and
two other Israelis were charged with utilizing hacked data for 100 million people to spam them with "pump and dump" penny stocks,
netting hundreds of millions of dollars.
The money was then laundered through an illegal bitcoin exchange allegedly owned by Shalon (more on bitcoin below). Shalon was
considered the ringleader of what U.S. prosecutors called a "
sprawling
criminal enterprise. " He faced decades behind bars.
However, he was instead given a
plea deal
in which he escaped any prison sentence whatsoever. Worth $2 billion, Shalon was to pay a $403 million fine.
...The ringleaders, Avi Ayache and Yaron Bar, were eventually convicted, and the U.S. prosecutor announced that they would
"spend a substantial portion of their lives in prison." Ayache was sentenced in 2014 to 13 years in prison and Bar to 12. Yet,
prison records indicate the two were released the next year. Other members of the ring also appear to have been released after
extraordinarily little time.
So if the US government is secretly releasing Federal prisoners, and if that is the case then American justice is on par with
the Mexican penal system, where such occurrences are routine.
Can anyone here verify if those two are in prison in Israel or free?
Ah, yes. Goldman Sachs is
famous for their "good work and integrity".
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has said about $4.5 billion was misappropriated from 1MDB,
including some money that Goldman Sachs helped raise, by high-level officials of the fund and
their associates from 2009 through 2014.
US prosecutors filed criminal charges against 2 former Goldman Sachs bankers earlier this
month. One of them, Tim Leissner, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to launder money and
conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
I'm sure it was just a "few bad apples", like Goldman Sachs's Ex-CEO
Lloyd Blankfein , who was personally involved in the transaction.
You might remember Lloyd from his doing "God's
Work" .
"... Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites ) ..."
"... ...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity. ..."
"... A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious, empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment. ..."
"... Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege. ..."
Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris
Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites )
...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep
sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A
place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation
don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where
the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity.
... ... ...
A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious,
empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with
making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment.
Hayes takes us through his less-than-successful experience putting himself in the latter's
shoes by trying out an unusual training tool, a virtually reality simulator: "We're only one scene
in, and already the self-righteous liberal pundit has drawn his weapon on an unarmed man holding
a cinder block."
Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he
was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into
my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much
as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege.
For black men living in the Colony, encounters with the police are much more fraught. Racial
profiling and minor infractions can lead to "being swept into the vortex of a penal system that
captures more than half the black men his age in his neighborhood... an adulthood marked by prison,
probation, and dismal job prospects...."
"... My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed "eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment". [10] He observed that the world cannot be analyzed by isolating only one of its aspects, since "the book of nature is one and indivisible", and includes the environment, life, sexuality, the family, social relations, and so forth. It follows that "the deterioration of nature is closely connected to the culture which shapes human coexistence" ..."
"... Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for "inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage", we are called to acknowledge "our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation". [14] He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: "For human beings to destroy the biological diversity of God's creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth's waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins". [15] For "to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God". [16] ..."
"... He asks us to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism which "entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what God's world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion". ..."
"... It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the challenges now before us. "The risk is growing day by day that man will not use his power as he should"; in effect, "power is never considered in terms of the responsibility of choice which is inherent in freedom" since its "only norms are taken from alleged necessity, from either utility or security". [85] But human beings are not completely autonomous. Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint. ..."
"... Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that "an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed". ..."
"... We have to accept that technological products are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build. ..."
"... Technology tends to absorb everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with technology "know full well that it moves forward in the final analysis neither for profit nor for the well-being of the human race", that "in the most radical sense of the term power is its motive – a lordship over all". [87] As a result, "man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature". [88] Our capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one's alternative creativity are diminished. ..."
"... At the same time, we have "a sort of 'superdevelopment' of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation", [90] while we are all too slow in developing economic institutions and social initiatives which can give the poor regular access to basic resources. We fail to see the deepest roots of our present failures, which have to do with the direction, goals, meaning and social implications of technological and economic growth. ..."
"... The specialization which belongs to technology makes it difficult to see the larger picture. The fragmentation of knowledge proves helpful for concrete applications, and yet it often leads to a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the broader horizon, which then becomes irrelevant. ..."
"... It becomes difficult to pause and recover depth in life. If architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized technology, where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony. Let us refuse to resign ourselves to this, and continue to wonder about the purpose and meaning of everything. Otherwise we would simply legitimate the present situation and need new forms of escapism to help us endure the emptiness. ..."
"... All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution. Science and technology are not neutral; from the beginning to the end of a process, various intentions and possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes. Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur. ..."
"... Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since "the technological mind sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere 'given', as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere 'space' into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference" ..."
"... Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble ..."
"... This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind from humanity ..."
"... Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations. If the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. ..."
"... The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. ..."
"... We are convinced that "man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life". [100] Nonetheless, once our human capacity for contemplation and reverence is impaired, it becomes easy for the meaning of work to be misunderstood. [101] We need to remember that men and women have "the capacity to improve their lot, to further their moral growth and to develop their spiritual endowments". [102] Work should be the setting for this rich personal growth, where many aspects of life enter into play: creativity, planning for the future, developing our talents, living out our values, relating to others ..."
"... it is essential that "we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone", [103] no matter the limited interests of business and dubious economic reasoning. ..."
"... We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfilment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work. ..."
"... The loss of jobs also has a negative impact on the economy "through the progressive erosion of social capital: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence". [104] In other words, "human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs". [105] To stop investing in people, in order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is bad business for society. ..."
"... In order to continue providing employment, it is imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity and business creativity. For example, there is a great variety of small-scale food production systems which feed the greater part of the world's peoples, using a modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in small agricultural parcels, in orchards and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting or local fishing. Economies of scale, especially in the agricultural sector, end up forcing smallholders to sell their land or to abandon their traditional crops. ..."
"... To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit, restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power. To claim economic freedom while real conditions bar many people from actual access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to practise a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good. ..."
6. My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed
"eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable
of ensuring respect for the environment".[10]
He observed that the world cannot be analyzed by isolating only one of its aspects, since "the book of nature is one and indivisible",
and includes the environment, life, sexuality, the family, social relations, and so forth. It follows that "the deterioration of
nature is closely connected to the culture which shapes human coexistence".[11]
Pope Benedict asked us to recognize that the natural environment has been gravely damaged by our irresponsible behaviour. The social
environment has also suffered damage. Both are ultimately due to the same evil: the notion that there are no indisputable truths
to guide our lives, and hence human freedom is limitless. We have forgotten that "man is not only a freedom which he creates for
himself. Man does not create himself. He is spirit and will, but also nature".[12]
With paternal concern, Benedict urged us to realize that creation is harmed "where we ourselves have the final word, where everything
is simply our property and we use it for ourselves alone. The misuse of creation begins when we no longer recognize any higher instance
than ourselves, when we see nothing else but ourselves".[13]
United by the same concern
7. These statements of the Popes echo the reflections of numerous scientists, philosophers, theologians and civic groups, all
of which have enriched the Church's thinking on these questions. Outside the Catholic Church, other Churches and Christian communities
– and other religions as well – have expressed deep concern and offered valuable reflections on issues which all of us find disturbing.
To give just one striking example, I would mention the statements made by the beloved Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, with whom
we share the hope of full ecclesial communion.
8. Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet,
for "inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage", we are called to acknowledge "our contribution, smaller or greater, to
the disfigurement and destruction of creation".[14]
He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: "For human beings
to destroy the biological diversity of God's creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes
in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth's
waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins".[15]
For "to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God".[16]
9. At the same time, Bartholomew has drawn attention to the ethical and spiritual roots of environmental problems, which require
that we look for solutions not only in technology but in a change of humanity; otherwise we would be dealing merely with symptoms.
He asks us to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism
which "entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what
God's world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion".[17]
As Christians, we are also called "to accept the world as a sacrament of communion, as a way of sharing with God and our neighbours
on a global scale. It is our humble conviction that the divine and the human meet in the slightest detail in the seamless garment
of God's creation, in the last speck of dust of our planet".[18]
... ... ...
I. TECHNOLOGY: CREATIVITY AND POWER
... ... ...
105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means "an increase of 'progress' itself", an advance in "security,
usefulness, welfare and vigour; an assimilation of new values into the stream of culture",[83]
as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such. The fact is that "contemporary
man has not been trained to use power well",[84]
because our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.
Each age tends to have only a meagre awareness of its own limitations. It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the
challenges now before us. "The risk is growing day by day that man will not use his power as he should"; in effect, "power is never
considered in terms of the responsibility of choice which is inherent in freedom" since its "only norms are taken from alleged necessity,
from either utility or security".[85]
But human beings are not completely autonomous. Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious,
of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing
power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics,
a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint.
II. THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM
106. The basic problem goes even deeper: it is the way that humanity has taken up technology and its development according
to an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm. This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational
procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the
scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation. It is as if
the subject were to find itself in the presence of something formless, completely open to manipulation. Men and women have constantly
intervened in nature, but for a long time this meant being in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves.
It was a matter of receiving what nature itself allowed, as if from its own hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands
on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us.
Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This
has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts
in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed
dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that "an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible
to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed".[86]
107. It can be said that many problems of today's world stem from the tendency, at times unconscious, to make the method and aims
of science and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the workings of society. The effects
of imposing this model on reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the deterioration of the environment, but this is just
one sign of a reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life. We have to accept that technological products
are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines
dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about
the kind of society we want to build.
108. The idea of promoting a different cultural paradigm and employing technology as a mere instrument is nowadays inconceivable.
The technological paradigm has become so dominant that it would be difficult to do without its resources and even more difficult
to utilize them without being dominated by their internal logic. It has become countercultural to choose a lifestyle whose goals
are even partly independent of technology, of its costs and its power to globalize and make us all the same. Technology tends
to absorb everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with technology "know full well that it moves forward
in the final analysis neither for profit nor for the well-being of the human race", that "in the most radical sense of the term power
is its motive – a lordship over all".[87]
As a result, "man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature".[88]
Our capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one's alternative creativity are diminished.
109. The technocratic paradigm also tends to dominate economic and political life. The economy accepts every advance in technology
with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings. Finance overwhelms the real economy.
The lessons of the global financial crisis have not been assimilated, and we are learning all too slowly the lessons of environmental
deterioration. Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems, and argue, in popular
and non-technical terms, that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth. They are less concerned
with certain economic theories which today scarcely anybody dares defend, than with their actual operation in the functioning of
the economy. They may not affirm such theories with words, but nonetheless support them with their deeds by showing no interest in
more balanced levels of production, a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of future generations.
Their behaviour shows that for them maximizing profits is enough. Yet by itself the market cannot guarantee integral human development
and social inclusion.[89]At the same time, we have "a sort of 'superdevelopment' of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast
with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation",[90]
while we are all too slow in developing economic institutions and social initiatives which can give the poor regular access to basic
resources. We fail to see the deepest roots of our present failures, which have to do with the direction, goals, meaning and social
implications of technological and economic growth.
110. The specialization which belongs to technology makes it difficult to see the larger picture. The fragmentation of knowledge
proves helpful for concrete applications, and yet it often leads to a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between
things, and for the broader horizon, which then becomes irrelevant. This very fact makes it hard to find adequate ways of solving
the more complex problems of today's world, particularly those regarding the environment and the poor; these problems cannot be dealt
with from a single perspective or from a single set of interests. A science which would offer solutions to the great issues would
necessarily have to take into account the data generated by other fields of knowledge, including philosophy and social ethics; but
this is a difficult habit to acquire today. Nor are there genuine ethical horizons to which one can appeal. Life gradually becomes
a surrender to situations conditioned by technology, itself viewed as the principal key to the meaning of existence. In the concrete
situation confronting us, there are a number of symptoms which point to what is wrong, such as environmental degradation, anxiety,
a loss of the purpose of life and of community living. Once more we see that "realities are more important than ideas".[91]
111. Ecological culture cannot be reduced to a series of urgent and partial responses to the immediate problems of pollution,
environmental decay and the depletion of natural resources. There needs to be a distinctive way of looking at things, a way of thinking,
policies, an educational programme, a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic
paradigm. Otherwise, even the best ecological initiatives can find themselves caught up in the same globalized logic. To seek only
a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the
true and deepest problems of the global system.
112. Yet we can once more broaden our vision. We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology; we can put it at the
service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral. Liberation from the dominant
technocratic paradigm does in fact happen sometimes, for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less polluting means
of production, and opt for a non-consumerist model of life, recreation and community. Or when technology is directed primarily to
resolving people's concrete problems, truly helping them live with more dignity and less suffering. Or indeed when the desire to
create and contemplate beauty manages to overcome reductionism through a kind of salvation which occurs in beauty and in those who
behold it. An authentic humanity, calling for a new synthesis, seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, almost unnoticed,
like a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door. Will the promise last, in spite of everything, with all that is authentic rising
up in stubborn resistance?
113. There is also the fact that people no longer seem to believe in a happy future; they no longer have blind trust in a better
tomorrow based on the present state of the world and our technical abilities. There is a growing awareness that scientific and technological
progress cannot be equated with the progress of humanity and history, a growing sense that the way to a better future lies elsewhere.
This is not to reject the possibilities which technology continues to offer us. But humanity has changed profoundly, and the accumulation
of constant novelties exalts a superficiality which pulls us in one direction. It becomes difficult to pause and recover depth
in life. If architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized
technology, where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony. Let us refuse to resign ourselves to this, and
continue to wonder about the purpose and meaning of everything. Otherwise we would simply legitimate the present situation and need
new forms of escapism to help us endure the emptiness.
114. All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution. Science and technology are not
neutral; from the beginning to the end of a process, various intentions and possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes.
Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate
the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained
delusions of grandeur.
III. THE CRISIS AND EFFECTS OF MODERN ANTHROPOCENTRISM
115. Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since "the technological mind
sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere 'given', as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered
into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere 'space' into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference".[92]
The intrinsic dignity of the world is thus compromised. When human beings fail to find their true place in this world, they misunderstand
themselves and end up acting against themselves: "Not only has God given the earth to man, who must use it with respect for the original
good purpose for which it was given, but, man too is God's gift to man. He must therefore respect the natural and moral structure
with which he has been endowed".[93]
116. Modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism which today, under another guise, continues to stand in the way
of shared understanding and of any effort to strengthen social bonds. The time has come to pay renewed attention to reality and the
limits it imposes; this in turn is the condition for a more sound and fruitful development of individuals and society. An inadequate
presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world.
Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over the world, which gave the impression that the protection of nature
was something that only the faint-hearted cared about. Instead, our "dominion" over the universe should be understood more properly
in the sense of responsible stewardship.[94]
117. Neglecting to monitor the harm done to nature and the environmental impact of our decisions is only the most striking sign
of a disregard for the message contained in the structures of nature itself. When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth
of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry
of nature itself; everything is connected. Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute
dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for "instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God
in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature".[95]
118. This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings
coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind from humanity. There can
be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology.
When the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinism, then "our overall
sense of responsibility wanes".[96]
A misguided anthropocentrism need not necessarily yield to "biocentrism", for that would entail adding yet another imbalance, failing
to solve present problems and adding new ones. Human beings cannot be expected to feel responsibility for the world unless, at the
same time, their unique capacities of knowledge, will, freedom and responsibility are recognized and valued.
119. Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations. If the
present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal
our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. Christian thought sees
human beings as possessing a particular dignity above other creatures; it thus inculcates esteem for each person and respect for
others. Our openness to others, each of whom is a "thou" capable of knowing, loving and entering into dialogue, remains the source
of our nobility as human persons. A correct relationship with the created world demands that we not weaken this social dimension
of openness to others, much less the transcendent dimension of our openness to the "Thou" of God. Our relationship with the environment
can never be isolated from our relationship with others and with God. Otherwise, it would be nothing more than romantic individualism
dressed up in ecological garb, locking us into a stifling immanence.
120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.
How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be,
if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? "If personal and social sensitivity
towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away".[97]
121. We need to develop a new synthesis capable of overcoming the false arguments of recent centuries. Christianity, in fidelity
to its own identity and the rich deposit of truth which it has received from Jesus Christ, continues to reflect on these issues in
fruitful dialogue with changing historical situations. In doing so, it reveals its eternal newness.[98]
Practical relativism
122. A misguided anthropocentrism leads to a misguided lifestyle. In the Apostolic Exhortation
Evangelii Gaudium, I noted that the practical relativism typical of our age is "even more dangerous than doctrinal relativism".[99]
When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative.
Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human
power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one's own immediate interests. There is a logic
in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay.
123. The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others
as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual
exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the mindset of those who
say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as
collateral damage. In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate
needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of
endangered species? Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation,
or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? This same "use and throw away" logic generates so much waste,
because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary. We should not think that political efforts or the
force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective
truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to
be avoided.
The need to protect employment
124. Any approach to an integral ecology, which by definition does not exclude human beings, needs to take account of the value
of labour, as Saint John Paul II wisely noted in his Encyclical
Laborem Exercens. According to the biblical account of creation, God placed man and woman in the garden he had created (cf.
Gen 2:15) not only to preserve it ("keep") but also to make it fruitful ("till"). Labourers and craftsmen thus "maintain the
fabric of the world" (Sir 38:34). Developing the created world in a prudent way is the best way of caring for it, as this
means that we ourselves become the instrument used by God to bring out the potential which he himself inscribed in things: "The Lord
created medicines out of the earth, and a sensible man will not despise them" (Sir 38:4).
125. If we reflect on the proper relationship between human beings and the world around us, we see the need for a correct understanding
of work; if we talk about the relationship between human beings and things, the question arises as to the meaning and purpose of
all human activity. This has to do not only with manual or agricultural labour but with any activity involving a modification of
existing reality, from producing a social report to the design of a technological development. Underlying every form of work is a
concept of the relationship which we can and must have with what is other than ourselves. Together with the awe-filled contemplation
of creation which we find in Saint Francis of Assisi, the Christian spiritual tradition has also developed a rich and balanced understanding
of the meaning of work, as, for example, in the life of Blessed Charles de Foucauld and his followers.
126. We can also look to the great tradition of monasticism. Originally, it was a kind of flight from the world, an escape from
the decadence of the cities. The monks sought the desert, convinced that it was the best place for encountering the presence of God.
Later, Saint Benedict of Norcia proposed that his monks live in community, combining prayer and spiritual reading with manual labour
(ora et labora). Seeing manual labour as spiritually meaningful proved revolutionary. Personal growth and sanctification came
to be sought in the interplay of recollection and work. This way of experiencing work makes us more protective and respectful of
the environment; it imbues our relationship to the world with a healthy sobriety.
127. We are convinced that "man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life".[100]
Nonetheless, once our human capacity for contemplation and reverence is impaired, it becomes easy for the meaning of work to be misunderstood.[101]
We need to remember that men and women have "the capacity to improve their lot, to further their moral growth and to develop their
spiritual endowments".[102]
Work should be the setting for this rich personal growth, where many aspects of life enter into play: creativity, planning for the
future, developing our talents, living out our values, relating to others, giving glory to God. It follows that, in the reality
of today's global society, it is essential that "we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone",[103]
no matter the limited interests of business and dubious economic reasoning.
128. We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human
work, for this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth,
human development and personal fulfilment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing
needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work. Yet the orientation of the economy
has favoured a kind of technological progress in which the costs of production are reduced by laying off workers and replacing them
with machines. This is yet another way in which we can end up working against ourselves. The loss of jobs also has a negative
impact on the economy "through the progressive erosion of social capital: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and
respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence".[104]
In other words, "human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs".[105]
To stop investing in people, in order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is bad business for society.
129. In order to continue providing employment, it is imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity
and business creativity. For example, there is a great variety of small-scale food production systems which feed the greater part
of the world's peoples, using a modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in small agricultural parcels, in orchards
and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting or local fishing. Economies of scale, especially in the agricultural sector, end up forcing
smallholders to sell their land or to abandon their traditional crops. Their attempts to move to other, more diversified, means
of production prove fruitless because of the difficulty of linkage with regional and global markets, or because the infrastructure
for sales and transport is geared to larger businesses. Civil authorities have the right and duty to adopt clear and firm measures
in support of small producers and differentiated production. To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit,
restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power. To claim economic freedom while
realconditions bar many people from actual access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to
practise a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving
our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs
as an essential part of its service to the common good.
New biological technologies
130. In the philosophical and theological vision of the human being and of creation which I have presented, it is clear that the
human person, endowed with reason and knowledge, is not an external factor to be excluded. While human intervention on plants and
animals is permissible when it pertains to the necessities of human life, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that
experimentation on animals is morally acceptable only "if it remains within reasonable limits [and] contributes to caring for or
saving human lives".[106]
The Catechism firmly states that human power has limits and that "it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer
or die needlessly".[107]
All such use and experimentation "requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation".[108]
"... Cohn was there to offer his views about jobs and the economy. But, like the man he was there to meet, he was at heart a salesman. ..."
"... Cohn, brash and bold, wired to attack any moneymaking opportunity, pitched a fix that would put Wall Street firms at the center: Private-industry partners could help infrastructure get fixed, saving the federal government from going deeper into debt. The way the moment was captured by the New York Times , among other publications , Trump was dumbfounded. "Is this true?" he asked. Was a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan likely to increase the deficit by a trillion dollars? Confronted by nodding heads, an unhappy president-elect said, "Why did I have to wait to have this guy tell me?" ..."
"... Within two weeks, the transition team announced that Cohn would take over as director of the president's National Economic Council. ..."
"... The conflicts between the two men were striking. Cohn ran a giant investment bank with offices in financial capitals around the globe, one deeply committed to a world with few economic borders. Trump's nationalist campaign contradicted everything Goldman Sachs and its top executives represented on the global stage. ..."
"... Even before Scaramucci, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., had joked that enough Goldman alum were working for the Trump administration to open a branch office in the White House. ..."
"... "There was a devastating financial crisis just over eight years ago," Warren said. "Goldman Sachs was at the heart of that crisis. The idea that the president is now going to turn over the country's economic policy to a senior Goldman executive turns my stomach." Prior administrations often had one or two people from Goldman serving in top positions. George W. Bush at one point had three. At its peak, the Trump administration effectively had six. ..."
"... There are also striking similarities in their business histories. Both have a knack for weathering scandals and setbacks and coming out on top. Trump has filed for bankruptcy four times, started a long list of failed businesses (casinos, an airline, a football team, a steak company), but managed, through his best-selling books and highly rated reality TV show, to recast himself as the world's greatest businessman. During Cohn's tenure as president, Goldman Sachs faced lawsuits and federal investigations that resulted in $9 billion in fines for misconduct in the run-up to the subprime meltdown. Goldman not only survived but thrived, posting record profits -- and Cohn was rewarded with handsome bonuses and a position at the top of the new administration. ..."
"... Like any publicly traded company, there would now be pressure on Goldman Sachs to make its quarterly numbers and "maximize shareholder value." Discarding the partner model also meant the loss of a valuable restraint on risk-taking and bad behavior. Under the old system, any losses or fines came out of the partners' pockets ..."
"... Under Cohn, the firm aggressively moved into the subprime mortgage market, using Goldman's own money and that of its customers to help stoke the housing bubble. ..."
"... In just three years, Goldman Sachs had increased its trading volume by a factor of 50, which the Wall Street Journal attributed to "Cohn's successful push to rev up risk-taking and use of Goldman's own capital to make a profit" -- what the industry calls proprietary trading, or prop trading. ..."
"... "He reshaped the culture of the mortgage department into more of a trading environment." ..."
"... With Blankfein and Cohn at the top, the transformation of Goldman Sachs was complete. By 2009, investment banking had shrunk to barely 10 percent of the firm's revenues. Richard Marin, a former executive at Bear Stearns, a Goldman competitor that wouldn't survive the mortgage meltdown, saw Cohn as "the root of the problem." Explained Marin, "When you become arrogant in a trading sense, you begin to think that everybody's a counterparty, not a customer, not a client. And as a counterparty, you're allowed to rip their face off." ..."
"... Cohn was a member of Goldman's board of directors during this critical time and second in command of the bank. At that point, Cohn and Blankfein, along with the board and other top executives, had several options. They might have shared their concerns about the mortgage market in a filing with the SEC, which requires publicly traded companies to reveal "triggering events that accelerate or increase a direct financial obligation" or might cause "impairments" to the bottom line. They might have warned clients who had invested in mortgage-backed securities to consider extracting themselves before they suffered too much financial damage. At the very least, Goldman could have stopped peddling mortgage-backed securities that its own mortgage trading desk suspected might soon collapse in value. Instead, Cohn and his colleagues decided to take care of Goldman Sachs. ..."
"... At Goldman Sachs, Cohn was known as a hands-on boss who made it his business to walk the floors, talking directly with traders and risk managers scattered throughout the firm. "Blankfein's role has always been the salesperson and big-thinker conceptualizer," said Dick Bove, a veteran Wall Street analyst who has covered Goldman Sachs for decades. "Gary was the guy dealing with the day-to-day operations. Gary was running the company." While making his rounds, Cohn would sometimes hike a leg up on a trader's desk, his crotch practically in the person's face. ..."
"... At 6-foot- 2, bullet-headed and bald with a heavy jaw and a fighter's face, Cohn cut a large figure inside Goldman. Profiles over the years would describe him as aggressive, abrasive, gruff, domineering -- the firm's "attack dog." He was the missile Blankfein launched when he needed to deliver bad news or enforce discipline. Cohn embodied the new Goldman: the man who would run through a brick wall if it meant a big payoff for the bank. ..."
"... The biggest threat to Goldman was the economic health of the American International Group. ..."
"... Goldman and its clients were looking at multibillion-dollar hits to their bottom line -- a potentially fatal blow. ..."
"... But as Goldman learned a century ago, it pays to have friends in high places. The day after Lehman went bankrupt, the Bush administration announced an $85 billion bailout of AIG in return for a majority stake in the company. ..."
"... Once free of government interference, the Goldman board (which included Cohn himself) paid him a $9 million bonus in 2009 and an $18 million bonus in 2010. ..."
"... Yet the once venerated firm was now the subject of jokes on the late-night talk shows. David Letterman broadcast a "Goldman Sachs Top 10 Excuses" list (No. 9: "You're saying 'fraud' like it's a bad thing."). ..."
"... After news leaked that the firm might pay its people a record $16.7 billion in bonuses in 2009, even President Barack Obama, for whom the firm had been a top campaign donor, began to turn against Goldman, telling " 60 Minutes ," "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street." ..."
"... The firm finally acknowledged that it had failed to conduct basic due diligence on the loans its was selling customers and, once it became aware of the hazards, did not disclose them. ..."
"... "Gary was the tip of the spear for Goldman to beat back regulatory reform," said Kelleher, the financial reform lobbyist. "I used to pass him going into different agencies. They brought him in when they wanted the big gun to finish off, to kill the wounded." ..."
"... Yet defanging the Volcker Rule remained the firm's top priority. Promoted by former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, the rule would prohibit banks from committing more than 3 percent of their core assets to in-house private equity and hedge funds in the business of buying up properties and businesses with the goal of selling them at a profit. One harbinger of the financial crisis had been the collapse in the summer of 2007 of a pair of Bear Stearns hedge funds that had invested heavily in subprime loans. That 3 percent cap would have had a big impact on Goldman, which maintained a separate private equity group and operated its own internal hedge funds. But it was the restrictions Volcker placed on proprietary trading that most threatened Goldman. ..."
"... prop trading made up 48 percent of Goldman's. By one estimate , the Volcker Rule could cost Goldman Sachs $3.7 billion in revenue a year. ..."
"... Goldman had five years to prepare for some version of a Volcker Rule. Yet a loophole granted banks sufficient time to dispose of "illiquid assets" without causing undue harm -- a loophole that might even cover the assets Goldman had only recently purchased, despite the impending compliance deadline. The Fed nonetheless granted the firm additional time to sell illiquid investments worth billions of dollars. "Goldman is brilliant at exercising access and influence without fingerprints," Kelleher said. ..."
"... Just two years later, Goldman officials were again summoned by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to address charges that the bank under Cohn and Blankfein had boosted its profits by building a "virtual monopoly" in order to inflate aluminum prices by as much as $3 billion. ..."
"... Trump spoke of the great financial price Cohn paid to join him in the White House during his speech in Cedar Rapids. But something like the opposite was true. A huge amount of Cohn's wealth was tied up in Goldman stock. By entering government, he could sell his stake in the firm to comply with federal ethics laws. That way he could diversify his holdings and avoid roughly $50 million in capital gains taxes -- at least until he sold the replacement assets. ..."
"... As a presidential aide, Cohn did not need Senate approval. He was part of the skeletal crew that arrived at the White House on day one, giving him a critical head start on wielding his clout and cultivating his relationship with the new president. At that point, Trump was summoning Cohn to the Oval Office for impromptu meetings as many as five times a day . ..."
"... How exactly could Cohn recuse himself from matters involving Goldman when almost every aspect of his job has the potential to either grow Goldman's profits and inflate its stock price -- or tank them both? ..."
"... Yet rather than publicly recuse himself on attempts to undo Dodd-Frank, Cohn has led the charge from inside the White House. On that matter, Cohn is a walking, talking conflict of interest . ..."
"... Beyond deregulation, two other pillars of Trump's economic plan -- cutting taxes and investing in infrastructure -- would have dramatic impacts on Goldman's bottom line. ..."
Steve Bannon was in the room the day Donald Trump first fell for Gary Cohn. So were
Reince Priebus, Jared Kushner, and Trump's pick for secretary of Treasury, Steve Mnuchin. It
was the end of November, three weeks after Trump's improbable victory, and Cohn, then still the
president of Goldman Sachs, was at Trump Tower presumably at the invitation of Kushner, with
whom he was friendly. Cohn was there to offer his views about jobs and the economy. But, like
the man he was there to meet, he was at heart a salesman.
On the campaign trail, Trump had spoken often about the importance of investing in
infrastructure. Yet the president-elect had apparently failed to appreciate that the government
would need to come up with hundreds of billions of dollars to fund his plans. Cohn, brash and
bold, wired to attack any moneymaking opportunity, pitched a fix that would put Wall Street
firms at the center: Private-industry partners could help infrastructure get fixed, saving the
federal government from going deeper into debt. The way the moment was captured by the
New York Times , among other
publications , Trump was dumbfounded. "Is this true?" he asked. Was a trillion-dollar
infrastructure plan likely to increase the deficit by a trillion dollars? Confronted by nodding
heads, an unhappy president-elect said, "Why did I have to wait to have this guy tell me?"
Within two weeks, the transition team announced that Cohn would take over as director of the
president's National Economic Council.
1. GOLDMAN ALWAYS WINS
Goldman Sachs had been a favorite cudgel for candidate Trump -- the symbol of a
government that favors Wall Street over its citizenry. Trump proclaimed that Hillary Clinton
was in the firm's pockets, as was Ted Cruz. It was Goldman Sachs that Trump singled out when he
railed against a system rigged in favor of the global elite -- one that "robbed our working
class, stripped our country of wealth, and put money into the pockets of a handful of large
corporations and political entities." Cohn, as president and chief operating officer of Goldman
Sachs, had been at the heart of it all. Aggressive and relentless, a former aluminum siding
salesman and commodities broker with a nose for making money, Cohn had turned Goldman's sleepy
home loan unit into what a Senate staffer called "one of the largest mortgage trading desks in
the world." There, he aggressively pushed his sales team to sell mortgage-backed securities to
unaware investors even as he watched over "the big short," Goldman's decision to bet billions
of dollars that the market would collapse.
Now Cohn would be coordinating economic policy for the populist president.
The conflicts between the two men were striking. Cohn ran a giant investment bank with
offices in financial capitals around the globe, one deeply committed to a world with few
economic borders. Trump's nationalist campaign contradicted everything Goldman Sachs and its
top executives represented on the global stage.
Trump raged against "offshoring" by American companies during the 2016 campaign. He even
threatened "retribution," a 35 percent tariff on any goods imported into the United States
by a company that had moved jobs overseas. But Cohn laid out Goldman's very different view of
offshoring at an investor conference in Naples, Florida, in November. There, Cohn explained
unapologetically that Goldman had
offshored its back-office staff, including payroll and IT, to Bangalore, India, now home to
the firm's largest office outside New York City: "We hire people there because they work for
cents on the dollar versus what people work for in the United States."
Candidate Trump promised to create millions of new jobs, vowing to be "the greatest jobs president
that God ever created." Cohn, as Goldman Sachs's president and COO, oversaw the firm's mergers
and acquisitions business that had, over the previous three years, led to the loss of at least
22,000 U.S. jobs, according to a study by two advocacy
groups. Early in his candidacy, Trump described as "disgusting" Pfizer's decision to buy a
smaller Irish competitor in order to execute a "corporate inversion," a maneuver in which a
U.S. company moves its headquarters overseas to reduce its tax burden. The Pfizer deal
ultimately fell through. But in 2016, in the heat of the campaign, Goldman advised on a
megadeal that saw Johnson Controls, a Fortune 500 company based in Milwaukee, buy the
Ireland-based Tyco International with the same goal. A few months later, with Goldman's help,
Johnson Controls had executed its inversion.
With Cohn's appointment, Trump now had three Goldman Sachs alums in top positions inside his
administration: Steve Bannon, who was a vice president at Goldman when he left the firm in
1990, as chief strategist, and Steve Mnuchin, who had spent 17 years at Goldman, as Treasury
secretary. And there were more to come. A few weeks later, another Goldman partner, Dina
Powell, joined the White House as a senior counselor for economic initiatives. Goldman was a
longtime client of Jay Clayton, Trump's choice to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission;
Clayton had represented Goldman after the 2008 financial crisis, and his wife Gretchen worked
there as a wealth management adviser. And there was the brief, colorful tenure of Anthony
Scaramucci as White House communications director: Scaramucci had been a vice president at
Goldman Sachs before leaving to co-found his own investment company.
Even before Scaramucci, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., had joked that enough Goldman
alum were working for the Trump administration to open a branch office in the White
House.
"There was a devastating financial crisis just over eight years ago," Warren said.
"Goldman Sachs was at the heart of that crisis. The idea that the president is now going to
turn over the country's economic policy to a senior Goldman executive turns my stomach." Prior
administrations often had one or two people from Goldman serving in top positions. George W.
Bush at one point had three. At its peak, the Trump administration effectively had
six.
Earlier this summer, Trump boasted about his team of economic advisers at a rally in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa. "This is the president of Goldman Sachs. Smart," Trump
said . "Having him represent us! He went from massive paydays to peanuts."
Trump waved off anyone who might question his decision to rely on the very people he had
demonized. "Somebody said, 'Why did you appoint a rich person to be in charge of the economy?'
I said: 'Because that's the kind of thinking we want.'" He needed "great, brilliant business
minds so the world doesn't take advantage of us." How else could he get the job done? "I love
all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions, I just don't want a poor
person."
"Does that make sense?" Trump asked. The crowd cheered.
Years of financial disclosure forms confirm that Cohn is indeed very rich. At the end of
2016, he owned some 900,000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock, a stake worth around $220 million on
the day Trump announced his appointment. Plus, he'd sold a million more Goldman shares over the
previous half-dozen years. In 2007 alone, the year of the big short, Goldman Sachs paid him
nearly $73 million -- more than the firm paid CEO Lloyd Blankfein. The disclosure forms Cohn
filled out to join the administration indicate he owned assets valued at $252 million to $611
million. That may or may not include the $65 million parting gift Goldman's board of directors
gave him for "outstanding leadership" just days before Trump was sworn in.
Like anyone taking a top job in the Trump administration, Cohn was
required to sign a pledge vowing not to participate for the next two years in any matter
"that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including
regulations and contracts." But presidents have sometimes issued waivers to these requirements,
and it is unclear whether the Trump administration is making such waivers public.
Sens. Warren and Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, sent Cohn a letter a few days
later. They brought up the $65 million bonus and asked him to publicly recuse himself from any
issue that could have a direct or "significant indirect" impact on his old firm. Cohn never
responded to the letter, and if he has ever received a waiver, it has not been made available
to the public or the Office of Government Ethics.
"Consistent with the Trump administration's stringent ethics rules, Mr. Cohn will recuse
himself from participating in any matter directly involving his former employer, Goldman
Sachs," White House spokesperson Natalie Strom said. "The White House will not comment
further."
The White House declined requests to make Cohn available for an interview and declined to
answer a detailed set of questions.
Cohn shared the podium with fellow Goldman alum Mnuchin (the two made partner there the same
year) when the administration unveiled its new tax plan, one that, if the past is prelude, had
the potential to save Goldman more than $1 billion a year in corporate taxes. The president had
promised to "do a number" on financial reforms implemented after the 2008 subprime crisis,
including one that threatened to cost Goldman several billion dollars a year in revenues. Under
Cohn, the administration has introduced new rules easing initial public offerings -- a Goldman
Sachs specialty dating back to the start of the last century, when the firm handled the IPOs of
Sears, Roebuck; F. W. Woolworth; and Studebaker. As Trump's top economic policy adviser, Cohn
can exert influence over regulatory agencies that have shaken billions in penalties and
settlements out of Goldman Sachs in recent years. And his former colleagues inside Goldman's
Public Sector and Infrastructure group likely appreciate the Trump administration's
infrastructure plan, which is more or less exactly as Cohn first pitched it inside Trump Tower
in November.
"It's hard to see how Gary Cohn recusing himself would solve a lot of these conflicts
because nearly every major decision of his job would have a significant impact, likely billions
of dollars, on Goldman Sachs and its executives," said Tyler Gellasch, an attorney and former
Senate staffer who helped draft Dodd-Frank, the landmark financial reform law passed in the
wake of the financial meltdown. "Goldman touches nearly every aspect of the economy, from
selling U.S. treasuries to helping companies go public, and the National Economic Council
advises on all of that."
In the wake of last month's white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Cohn
confessed to the Financial Times that he
has "come under enormous pressure both to resign and to remain." But the man who the Washington
Post has dubbed Trump's "moderate voice" declared that neo-Nazis would not force "this Jew" to
leave his job. "As a patriotic American, I am reluctant to leave my post as director of the
National Economic Council," Cohn told FT. "I feel a duty to fulfill my commitment to work on
behalf of the American people."
Or at least a few of them. The Trump economic agenda, it turns out, is largely the Goldman
agenda, one with the potential to deliver any number of gifts to the firm that made Cohn
colossally rich. If Cohn stays, it will be to pursue an agenda of aggressive financial
deregulation and massive corporate tax cuts -- he seeks to slash rates by 57 percent -- that
would dramatically increase profits for large financial players like Goldman. It is an agenda
as radical in its scope and impact as Bannon's was.
2. ALPHA MALES
Donald Trump, the "blue-collar billionaire," has taken great pains to write grit and
toughness into his privileged biography. He talks of military schools and visits to
construction sites with his father and wrote in "The Art of the Deal" that in the second grade,
"I actually gave a teacher a black eye. I punched my music teacher because I didn't think he
knew anything about music and I almost got expelled." Yet when the authors of the book "Trump
Revealed: An American Journey of Ambition, Ego, Money, and Power" spoke to several of his
childhood friends, none of them recalled the incident. Trump himself crumpled when asked about
the incident during the 2016 campaign: "When I say 'punch,' when you're that age, nobody
punches very hard."
Gary Cohn, however, is the middle-class kid and self-made millionaire Trump imagines himself
to be. It appears that Cohn actually did slug a grade-school teacher in the face. "I was being
abused," Cohn told author Malcolm Gladwell, who interviewed him for his book, "David and
Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants," back when Cohn was still
president of Goldman Sachs. As a child, Cohn struggled with dyslexia, a reading disorder people
didn't understand much about when Cohn attended school in the 1970s in a suburb outside
Cleveland. "You're a 6- or 7- or 8-year-old-kid, and you're in a public-school setting, and
everyone thinks you're an idiot," Cohn confessed to Gladwell. "You'd try to get up every
morning and say, today is going to be better, but after you do that a couple of years, you
realize that today is going to be no different than yesterday." One time when he was in the
fourth grade, a teacher put him under her desk, rolled her chair close, and started kicking
him, Cohn said. "I pushed the chair back, hit her in the face, and walked out."
While Trump's father was a wealthy real estate developer, Cohn's father was an electrician.
When Trump sought to get into the casino business, his father loaned him $14 million. When Cohn
couldn't find a job after graduating from college, all his father could do was find him one
selling aluminum siding. While Trump has the instincts of a reality show producer and an eye
for spectacle, Cohn prefers to operate in the shadows.
But they likely recognize much of themselves in the other. Both Cohn and Trump are alpha
males -- men of action unlikely to be found holed up in an office reading through stacks of
policy reports. In fact, neither seems to be much of a reader. Cohn told Gladwell it would take
him roughly six hours to read just 22 pages; he ended his time with the author by wishing him
luck on "your book I'm not going to read." Both have a transactional view of politics. Trump
switched his voter registration between Democratic, Republican, and independent seven times
between 1999 and 2012. In the 2000s, his foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation,
and he contributed $4,700 to Hillary Clinton's senatorial campaigns. He even bought and
refurbished a golf course in Westchester County a few miles from the Clinton home, in part,
Trump once admitted, to ingratiate himself with the Clintons. Cohn is a registered Democrat who
has given at least $275,000 to Democrats over the years, including to the campaigns of Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama, but also around $250,000 to Republicans, including Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
There are also striking similarities in their business histories. Both have a knack for
weathering scandals and setbacks and coming out on top. Trump has filed for bankruptcy four
times, started a long list of failed businesses (casinos, an airline, a football team, a steak
company), but managed, through his best-selling books and highly rated reality TV show, to
recast himself as the world's greatest businessman. During Cohn's tenure as president, Goldman
Sachs faced lawsuits and federal investigations that resulted in $9 billion in fines for
misconduct in the run-up to the subprime meltdown. Goldman not only survived but thrived,
posting record profits -- and Cohn was rewarded with handsome bonuses and a position at the top
of the new administration.
Cohn's path to the White House started with a tale of brass and bluster that would make
Trump the salesman proud. Still in his 20s and stuck selling aluminum siding, Cohn made a play
that would change his life. In the fall of 1982, while visiting the company's home office on
Long Island, he stole a day from work and headed to the U.S. commodities exchange in Manhattan,
hoping to talk himself into a job. He overheard an important-looking man say he was heading to
LaGuardia Airport; Cohn blurted out that he was headed there, too. He jumped into a cab with
the man and, Cohn told Gladwell, who devoted six pages of "David and Goliath" to Cohn's
underdog rise, "I lied all the way to the airport." The man confided to Cohn that his firm had
just put him in charge of a market, options, that he knew little about. Cohn likely knew even
less, but he assured his backseat companion that he could get him up to speed. Cohn then spent
the weekend reading and re-reading a book called "Options as a Strategic Investment." Within
the week, he'd been hired as the man's assistant.
Cohn soon learned enough to venture off on his own and established himself as an independent
silver trader on the floor of the New York Commodities Exchange. In 1990, Goldman Sachs,
arguably the most elite firm on Wall Street, offered him a job.
Goldman Sachs was founded in the years just after the American Civil War. Marcus Goldman, a
Jewish immigrant from Germany, leased a cellar office next to a coal chute in 1869. There, in
an office one block from Wall Street, he bought the bad debt of local businesses that needed
quick cash. His son-in-law, Samuel Sachs, joined the firm in 1882. A generation later, in 1906,
the firm made its first mark, arranging for the public sale of shares in Sears, Roebuck.
Goldman Sachs's influence over politics dates back at least to 1914. That year, Henry Goldman,
the founder's son, was invited to advise Woodrow Wilson's administration about the creation of
a central bank, mandated by the Federal Reserve Act, which had passed the previous year.
Goldman Sachs men have played important roles in U.S. government ever since.
There was the occasional scandal, such as Goldman Sachs's role in the 1970 collapse of Penn
Central railroad, then the largest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history. Still, the firm built
a reputation as a sober, elite partnership that served its clients ably. In 1979, when John
Whitehead, a senior partner and co-chairman, set to paper what he called Goldman's "Business
Principles," he began with the firm's most cherished belief: The client's interests come before
all else.
Two years later, Goldman took a step that signaled the beginning of the end of that culture.
In the fall of 1981, Goldman purchased J. Aron & Co., a commodities trading firm. Some
within the partnership were against the acquisition, worried over how profane, often crude,
trading culture would mix with Goldman's restrained, well-mannered way of doing business. "We
were street fighters," one former J. Aron partner told Fortune magazine in 2008.
The J. Aron team moved into the Goldman Sachs offices in lower Manhattan, but didn't adopt
its culture. Within a few years, it was producing well over $1 billion a year in profits. They
were 300 employees inside a firm of 6,000, but were posting one-third of Goldman's total
profits. The cultural shift, it turned out, was moving in the other direction. J. Aron,
according to a book by Charles D. Ellis, a former Goldman consultant, brought to Goldman "a
trading culture that would become dominant in the firm."
Lloyd Blankfein, who ascended to chairman and CEO in in 2006, started his Goldman career at
J. Aron, a year after Goldman acquired the firm. "We didn't have the word 'client' or
'customer' at the old J. Aron," Blankfein told Fortune magazine two years
after taking over as CEO. "We had counter-parties." Cohn joined J. Aron eight years after
Blankfein did, in 1990. Four years later, Blankfein was put in charge of the firm's Fixed
Income, Currency, and Commodities division, which included J. Aron. Cohn, loyal and
hard-working, with an instinct for connecting with people who can help him, became Blankfein's
" corporate problem
solver ."
The emergence of "Bad Goldman" -- and Cohn's central role in that drama -- is really the
story of the rise of the traders inside the firm. "As trading came to be a bigger part of Wall
Street, I noticed that the vision changed," said Robert Kaplan, a former Goldman Sachs vice
chairman, who left in 2006 after working at the firm for 23 years. "The leaders were saying the
same words, but they started to change incentives away from the value-added vision and tilt
more to making money first. If making money is your vision, what lengths will you not go?"
At the height of the dot-com years, a debate raged within the firm. The firm underwrote
dozens of technology IPOs, including Microsoft and Yahoo, in the 1980s and 1990s, minting an
untold number of multimillionaires and the occasional billionaire. Some of the companies they
were bringing public generated no profits at all, while Goldman was generating up to $3 billion
in profits a year. It seemed inevitable that some within Goldman Sachs began to dream of
jettisoning the Goldman's century-old partnership structure and taking their firm public, too.
Jon Corzine was running the firm then -- he would later go into politics in the Goldman
tradition, first as a U.S. senator and then as New Jersey governor -- and was four-square in
favor of going public. Corzine's second in command, Henry Paulson -- who would go on to serve
as Treasury secretary -- was against the idea. But Corzine ordered up a study that supported
his view that remaining private stifled Goldman's competitive opportunities and promoted
Paulson to co-senior partner. Paulson soon got on board. In May 1999, Goldman sold $3.7 billion
worth of shares in the company. At the end of the first day of trading, Corzine's and Paulson's
stakes in the firm were each worth $205 million. Cohn's and Mnuchin's shares were each worth
$112 million. And Blankfein ended up with $168 million in company stock.
Like any publicly traded company, there would now be pressure on Goldman Sachs to make its
quarterly numbers and "maximize shareholder value." Discarding the partner model also meant the
loss of a valuable restraint on risk-taking and bad behavior. Under the old system, any losses
or fines came out of the partners' pockets. In the early 1990s, for example, the firm was
involved in transactions with Robert Maxwell, a London-based media mogul who was accused of
stealing hundreds of millions of pounds from his companies' pension funds. The $253 million
that Goldman Sachs paid to settle lawsuits brought by pension funds over its involvement was
split among the firm's 84 limited partners. Now any losses are paid by a publicly traded entity
owned by shareholders, with no direct financial liability for the decision-makers themselves.
In theory, Goldman could claw back bonuses in response to executives' bad behavior. But in
2016, when Goldman paid over $5 billion to settle charges brought by the Justice Department
that the firm misled customers in the sale of a subprime mortgage product during Cohn's time
overseeing that unit, the Goldman board declined to dock Cohn's pay. Instead, the company
awarded
him a $5.5 million cash bonus and another $12.6 million in company stock.
As Blankfein moved up the corporate hierarchy, Cohn rose along with him. When Blankfein was
made vice chairman in charge of the firm's multibillion-dollar global commodities business and
its equities division, Cohn took over as co-head of FICC, Blankfein's previous position. That
meant Cohn was overseeing not just J. Aron and the firm's commodities business, but also its
currency trades and bond sales. By the start of 2004, Blankfein was promoted to president and
COO, and Cohn was named co-head of global securities. At that point, Cohn had authority over
the mortgage-trading desk. Under Cohn, the firm aggressively moved into the subprime mortgage
market, using Goldman's own money and that of its customers to help stoke the housing
bubble.
Goldman was already enabling subprime predators, such as Ameriquest and New Century
Financial, by providing them with the cash infusions they needed to scale up their lending to
individual home buyers. Cohn would steer the firm deeper into the subprime frenzy by setting up
Goldman as a patron of some of these same mortgage originators. During his tenure, Goldman
snapped up loans from New Century, Countrywide, and other notorious mortgage originators and
bundled them into deals with opaque names, such as ABACUS and GSAMP. Under Cohn's watchful eye,
Goldman's brokers then funneled slices to customers they sold on the wisdom of holding
mortgage-backed securities in their portfolios.
One such creation, GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-2, illustrates Goldman's disregard for the
quality of loans it was buying and packaging into security deals. Created in early 2006, the
investment vehicle was made up of more than $1 billion in home loans Goldman had bought from
Ameriquest, one of the nation's largest and most aggressive subprime lenders. By that point,
the lender already had set aside
$325 million to settle a probe by attorneys general and banking regulators in 49 states,
who accused Ameriquest of misleading thousands of borrowers about the costs of their loans and
falsifying home appraisals and other key documents. Yet GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-2 was
filled with Ameriquest loans made to more than 3,000 homeowners in Arizona, Illinois, Florida,
and elsewhere. By the end of 2008, 65 percent of the roughly 1,400 borrowers whose loans
remained in the deal were in default, had filed for bankruptcy, or had been targeted for
foreclosure.
In just three years, Goldman Sachs had increased its trading volume by a factor of 50, which
the Wall Street
Journal attributed to "Cohn's successful push to rev up risk-taking and use of Goldman's
own capital to make a profit" -- what the industry calls proprietary trading, or prop trading.
The 2010 Journal article quoted Justin Gmelich, then the firm's mortgage chief, who said of
Cohn, "He reshaped the culture of the mortgage department into more of a trading environment."
In 2005, with Cohn overseeing the firm's home loan desk, Goldman underwrote $103 billion in
mortgage-backed securities and other more esoteric products, such as collateralized debt
obligations, which often were priced based on giant pools of home loans. The following year,
the firm underwrote deals worth $131 billion.
In 2006, CEO Henry Paulson left the firm to join George W. Bush's cabinet as Treasury
secretary. Blankfein, Cohn's mentor and friend, took Paulson's place. By tradition, Blankfein,
a trader, should have elevated someone from the investment banking side to serve as his No. 2,
so both sides of the firm would be represented in the top leadership. Instead he named Cohn,
his long-time loyalist, and Jon Winkelried, who also had history on the trading side, as
co-presidents and co-COOs. Winkelried, who had started at Goldman eight years before Cohn, had
probably earned the right to hold those titles by himself. But Cohn had the advantage of his
relationship with the CEO. Blankfein and Cohn vacationed together in the Caribbean and Mexico,
owned homes near each other in the Hamptons, and their children attended the same school.
Winkelreid was out in two years. The bromance between his fellow No. 2 and the top boss may
have proved too much.
With Blankfein and Cohn at the top, the transformation of Goldman Sachs was complete. By
2009, investment banking had shrunk to barely
10 percent of the firm's revenues. Richard Marin, a former executive at Bear Stearns, a Goldman
competitor that wouldn't survive the mortgage meltdown, saw Cohn as "the root of the problem."
Explained Marin, "When you become arrogant in a trading sense, you begin to think that
everybody's a counterparty, not a customer, not a client. And as a counterparty, you're allowed
to rip their face off."
3. THE BIG SHORT
People inside Goldman Sachs were growing nervous. It was the fall of 2006 and, as
Daniel Sparks, the Goldman partner overseeing the firm's 400-person mortgage trading
department, wrote in an email to several colleagues, "Subprime market getting hit hard." The
firm had lent millions to New Century, a mortgage lender dealing in the higher-risk subprime
market. And now New Century was late on payments. Sparks could see that the wobbly housing
market was having an impact on his department. For 10 consecutive trading days, his people had
lost money. The dollar amounts were small to a behemoth like Goldman: between $5 million and
$30 million a day. But the trend made Sparks jittery enough to share his concerns with the
Goldman's top executives: President Gary Cohn; David Viniar, the firm's chief financial
officer; and CEO Lloyd Blankfein.
Sparks, a Cohn protégé, was running the mortgage desk that his mentor, only a
few years earlier, had built into a major profit center for the bank. In 2006 and 2007, a
report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found, the two "maintained
frequent, direct contact" as Goldman worked to jettison the billions in subprime loans it had
on its book. "One of my jobs at the time was to make sure Gary and David and Lloyd knew what
was going on," Sparks told William Cohan, author of the 2011
book "Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World . " "They don't
like surprises." Viniar summoned around 20 traders and
managers to a 30th floor conference room inside Goldman headquarters in lower Manhattan. It was
there, on an unseasonably warm Thursday in December 2006, that the firm decided to initiate
what people inside Goldman would eventually dub "the big short."
One name tossed around during the three-hour meeting was that of John Paulson. Paulson (no
relation to Goldman's former CEO) would later attain infamy when it was revealed that his firm,
Paulson & Co., made roughly $15 billion betting against the mortgage market. (His
personal take
was nearly $4 billion.) At that point, though, Paulson was a little-known hedge fund manager
who crossed Goldman's radar when he asked the firm to create a product that would allow him to
take a "short position" on the real estate market -- laying down bets that a large number of
mortgage investments were going to plummet in value. Goldman sold Paulson what's called a
credit-default swap, essentially an insurance policy that would pay off if homeowners defaulted
on their mortgages in large enough numbers. The firm would create several more swaps on his
behalf in the intervening months. Eventually, as mortgage defaults began to mount, people
inside Goldman Sachs came to see Paulson as more of a prophet than a patsy. Some sitting around
the conference table that December day wanted to follow his lead.
"There will be big opportunities the next several months," one Goldman manager at the
meeting wrote enthusiastically in an email sent shortly after it ended. Sparks weighed in by
email later that night. He wanted to make sure Goldman had enough "dry powder" -- cash on hand
-- to be "ready for the good opportunities that are coming." That Sunday, Sparks copied Cohn on
an email reporting the firm's progress on laying down short positions against mortgage-backed
securities it had put together. The trading desk had already made $1.5 billion in short bets,
"but still more work to do."
Cohn was a member of Goldman's board of directors during this critical time and second in
command of the bank. At that point, Cohn and Blankfein, along with the board and other top
executives, had several options. They might have shared their concerns about the mortgage
market in a filing with the SEC, which requires publicly traded companies to reveal "triggering
events that accelerate or increase a direct financial obligation" or might cause "impairments"
to the bottom line. They might have warned clients who had invested in mortgage-backed
securities to consider extracting themselves before they suffered too much financial damage. At
the very least, Goldman could have stopped peddling mortgage-backed securities that its own
mortgage trading desk suspected might soon collapse in value. Instead, Cohn and his colleagues decided to take care of Goldman Sachs.
Goldman would not have suffered the reputational damage that it did -- or paid multiple
billions in federal fines -- if the firm, anticipating the impending crisis, had merely shorted
the housing market in the hopes of making billions. That is what investment banks do: spot ways
to make money that others don't see. The money managers and traders featured in the film "The
Big Short" did the same -- and they were cast as brave contrarians. Yet unlike the investors
featured in the film, Goldman had itself helped inflate the housing bubble -- buying tens of
billions of dollars in subprime mortgages over the previous several years for bundling into
bonds they sold to investors. And unlike these investors, Goldman's people were not warning
anyone who would listen about the disaster about to hit. As federal investigations found, the
firm, which still claims "our clients' interests always come first" as a core principle, failed
to disclose that its top people saw disaster in the very products its salespeople were
continuing to hawk.
Goldman still held billions of mortgages on its books in December 2006 -- mortgages that
Cohn and other Goldman executives suspected would soon be worth much less than the firm had
paid for them. So, while Cohn was overseeing one team inside Goldman Sachs preoccupied with
implementing the big short, he was in regular contact with others scrambling to offload its
subprime inventory. One Goldman trader described the mortgage-backed securities they were
selling as "shitty." Another complained in an email that they were being asked to "distribute
junk that nobody was dumb enough to take first time around." A December 28 email from Fabrice
"Fabulous Fab" Tourre, a Goldman vice president later convicted of fraud, instructed traders to
focus on less astute, "buy and hold" investors rather than "sophisticated hedge funds" that
"will be on the same side of the trade as we will."
At Goldman Sachs, Cohn was known as a hands-on boss who made it his business to walk the
floors, talking directly with traders and risk managers scattered throughout the firm.
"Blankfein's role has always been the salesperson and big-thinker conceptualizer," said Dick
Bove, a veteran Wall Street analyst who has covered Goldman Sachs for decades. "Gary was the
guy dealing with the day-to-day operations. Gary was running the company." While making his
rounds, Cohn would sometimes hike a leg up on a trader's desk, his crotch practically in the
person's face.
At 6-foot- 2, bullet-headed and bald with a heavy jaw and a fighter's face, Cohn cut a large
figure inside Goldman. Profiles over the years would describe him as aggressive, abrasive,
gruff, domineering -- the firm's "attack dog." He was the missile Blankfein launched when he
needed to deliver bad news or enforce discipline. Cohn embodied the new Goldman: the man who
would run through a brick wall if it meant a big payoff for the bank.
A Bloomberg profile described his typical day as 11 or 12 hours in the office, a
bank-related dinner, then phone calls and emails until midnight. "The old adage that hard work
will get you what you want is 100 percent true," Cohn said in a 2009 commencement address at
American University. "Work hard, ask questions, and take risk."
There's no record of how often Cohn visited his stomping grounds after hours in the early
months of 2007, but emails reveal an executive demanding -- and getting -- regular updates. On
February 7, one of the largest originators of subprime loans, HSBC, reported a greater than
anticipated rise in troubled loans in its portfolio, and another, New Century, restated its
earnings for the previous three quarters to "correct errors." Sparks wrote an email
to Cohn and others the next morning to reassure them that his team was closely monitoring the
pricing of the company's "scratch-and-dent book" and already had a handle on which loans were
defaults and which could still be securitized and offloaded onto customers. An impatient Cohn
sent a two-word email
at 5 o'clock that evening: "Any update?" The next day, an internal memo circulated that listed
dozens of mortgage-backed securities with the exhortation, "Let all of the respective desks
know how we can be helpful in moving these bonds." A week later, Sparks updated Cohn on the
billions in shorts his firm had bought but warned that it was hurting sales of its "pipeline of
CDOs," the collateralized debt obligations the firm had created in order to sell the mortgages
still on its books.
In early March, Cohn was among those who received an email spelling out the mortgage
products the firm still held. The stockpile included $1.7 billion in mortgage-related
securities, along with $1.3 billion in subprime home loans and $4.3 billion in "Alt-A" loans
that fall between prime and subprime on the risk scale. Goldman was "net short," according to
that same email, with $13 billion in short positions, but its exposure to the mortgage market
was still considerable. Sparks and others continued to update Cohn on their success offloading
securities backed by subprime mortgages through the third quarter of 2007. One product Goldman
priced at $94 a share on March 31, 2007 was worth just $15 five months later. Pension funds and
insurance companies were among those losing billions of dollars on securities Goldman put
together and endorsed as a safe, AAA-rated investments.
The third quarter of 2007 was ugly. A pair of Bear Stearns hedge funds failed. Merrill Lynch
reported $2.2 billion in losses -- its largest quarterly loss ever. Merrill's CEO warned that
the bank faced another $8 billion in potential losses due to the firm's exposure to subprime
mortgages and resigned several weeks later. The roiling credit crisis also took down the CEO of
Citigroup, which reported $6.5 billion in losses and then weeks later, warned of $8 billion to
$11 billion in additional subprime-related write-downs.
And then there was Goldman Sachs, which reported a $2.9 billion profit that quarter. For the
moment, the financial press seemed in awe of Blankfein, Cohn, and the rest of the team running
the firm. Fortune headlined an article "How Goldman Sachs Defies Gravity" that said Goldman's
"huge, shrewd bet" against the mortgage market "would seem to confirm the view Goldman is the
nimblest, and perhaps the smartest, brokerage on Wall Street." A Goldman press release drily
noted that "significant losses" in some areas -- the subprime mortgages it hadn't managed to
unload -- had been "more than offset by gains on short mortgage products." A Goldman trader who
played a central role in the big short was not so demure when making the case for a big bonus
that year. John Paulson was "definitely the man in this space," he conceded, but he'd helped
make Goldman "#1 on the street by a wide margin."
Disaster struck nine months into 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, in large part
the result of its exposure to subprime losses. Hank Paulson, the Treasury secretary and former
Goldman CEO, spent a weekend meeting with would-be suitors willing to take over a storied bank
that on paper was now worth virtually nothing. He couldn't find a buyer. Nor could officials
from the Federal Reserve, who were also working overtime to save the investment bank, founded
in 1850, that was even older than Goldman Sachs. Shortly after midnight on Monday, September
15, 2008, Lehman announced that it would file for bankruptcy protection when the courts in New
York opened that morning -- the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history.
Goldman Sachs wasn't immune from the crisis. The week before Lehman's fall, Goldman's stock
had topped $161 a share. By Wednesday, it dropped to below $100. It had avoided some big losses
by betting against the mortgage market, but the wider financial crisis was wreaking havoc on
its other investments. On paper, Cohn had personally lost tens of millions of dollars. He
hunkered down in an office with a view of Goldman's trading floor and worked the phone, trying
to change the minds of major investors who were pulling their money from Goldman, fearful of
anything riskier than stashing their cash in a mattress.
The next week, Goldman
converted from a free-standing investment bank to a bank holding company, which made it, in
the eyes of regulators, no different from Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, or any other retail
bank. That gave the firm access to cheap capital through the Fed but would also bring increased
scrutiny from regulators. The bank took a $10 billion bailout from the Troubled Asset Relief
Program and another $5 billion from Warren Buffett, in return for an annual dividend of 10
percent and access to discounted company stock. The firm raised additional billions through a
public stock offering.
The biggest threat to Goldman was the economic health of the American International Group.
Among other products, AIG sold insurance to protect against defaults on mortgage assets, which
had been central to Goldman's big short. Of the $80 billion in U.S. mortgage assets that AIG
insured during the housing bubble, Goldman bought protection from AIG on roughly $33 billion,
according to the Wall Street Journal. When Lehman went into bankruptcy, its creditors received
11 cents on the dollar. Executives at AIG, in a frantic effort to avoid bankruptcy, had floated
the idea of pushing its creditors to accept 40 to 60 cents on the dollar; there was speculation
creditors like Goldman would receive as little as 25 percent. Goldman and its clients were
looking at multibillion-dollar hits to their bottom line -- a potentially fatal
blow.
But as Goldman learned a century ago, it pays to have friends in high places. The day after
Lehman went bankrupt, the Bush administration announced an $85 billion bailout of AIG in return
for a majority stake in the company. The next day, Paulson obtained a waiver regarding
interactions with his former firm because, the Treasury secretary said, "It became clear that
we had some very significant issues with Goldman Sachs." Paulson's calendar, the New York Times
reported, showed that the week of the AIG bailout, he and Blankfein spoke two dozen times.
While creditors around the globe were being forced to settle for much less than they were owed,
AIG paid its counterparties 100 cents on the dollar. AIG ended up being the single largest
private recipient of TARP funding. It received additional billions in rescue funds from the New
York Federal Reserve Bank, whose board chair Stephen Friedman was a former Goldman executive
who still sat on the firm's board. The U.S. Treasury ended up with greater than a 90 percent
share of AIG, and the U.S. government, using taxpayer dollars, paid in full on the insurance
policies financial institutions bought to protect themselves from steep declines in real estate
prices -- chief among them, Goldman Sachs. All told, Goldman received at least $22.9 billion in
public bailouts, including $10 billion in TARP funds and $12.9 billion in taxpayer-funded
payments from AIG.
Goldman, once again, had come out on top.
4. THE VAMPIRE SQUID
Goldman Sachs repaid repaid its $10 billion bailout partway through 2009, less than
12 months after the loan was made. Other banks in the U.S. and abroad were still struggling but
not Goldman, which reported a record $19.8 billion in pre-tax profits that year, and $12.9
billion the next. Gary Cohn went without a bonus in 2008, left to scrape by on his $600,000
salary. Once free of government interference, the Goldman board (which included Cohn himself)
paid him a $9 million bonus in 2009 and an $18 million bonus in 2010.
Yet the once venerated firm was now the subject of jokes on the late-night talk shows. David
Letterman broadcast a "Goldman Sachs Top 10 Excuses" list (No. 9: "You're saying 'fraud' like
it's a bad thing."). Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi described the bank as "a great vampire squid
wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that
smells like money," a devastating moniker that followed Goldman into the business pages. After
news leaked that the firm might pay its people a record $16.7 billion in bonuses in 2009, even
President Barack Obama, for whom the firm had been a top campaign donor, began to turn against
Goldman, telling " 60 Minutes ," "I did not run for office
to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street."
"They're still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks," Obama said. "Well, let's
see. You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst
economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem."
Goldman was also facing an onslaught of investigations and lawsuits over behavior that had
helped precipitate the financial crisis. Class actions and other lawsuits filed by pension
funds and other investors accused Goldman of abusing their trust, making "false and misleading
statements," and failing to conduct basic due diligence on the loans underlying the products it
peddled. At least 25 of these suits named Cohn as a defendant.
State and federal regulators joined the fray. The SEC accused Goldman of deception in its
marketing of opaque investments called "synthetic collateralized debt obligations," the values
of which were tied to bundles of actual mortgages. These were the deals Goldman had arranged in
2006 on behalf of John Paulson so he could short the U.S. housing market. Goldman, it turned
out, had allowed Paulson to cherry-pick poor-quality loans at the greatest risk of defaulting
-- a fact Goldman did not share with potential investors. "Goldman wrongly permitted a client
that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to
include in an investment portfolio," the SEC's enforcement director at the time said, "telling
other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third
party."
Suddenly, Cohn and other Goldman officials were downplaying the big short. In June 2010,
Cohn testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, created by Congress to
investigate the causes of the nation's worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Cohn
asked the commissioners how anyone could claim the firm had bet against its clients when
"during the two years of the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs lost $1.2 billion in its
residential mortgage-related business"? His statement was technically true, but Cohn failed to
mention the billions of dollars the firm pocketed by betting the mortgage market would
collapse. Senate investigators later calculated that, at its peak, Goldman had $13.9 billion in
short positions that would only pay off in the event of a steep drop in the mortgage market,
positions that produced a record $3.7 billion in profits.
Two weeks after Cohn's testimony, Goldman agreed to pay the SEC $550 million to settle charges of
securities fraud -- then the largest penalty assessed against a financial services firm in the
agency's history. Goldman admitted no wrongdoing, acknowledging only that its marketing
materials "contained incomplete information." Goldman paid $60 million in fines and restitution
to settle an investigation by the
Massachusetts attorney general into the financial backing the firm had offered to predatory
mortgage lenders. The bank set aside another $330 million
to assist people who lost their homes thanks to questionable foreclosure practices at a Goldman
loan-servicing subsidiary. Goldman agreed to billions of dollars in additional settlements with
state and federal agencies relating to its sale of dicey mortgage-backed securities. The firm
finally
acknowledged that it had failed to conduct basic due diligence on the loans its was selling
customers and, once it became aware of the hazards, did not disclose them.
In the final report produced by the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
Goldman Sachs was mentioned an extraordinary 2,495 times, and Gary Cohn 89 times. A Goldman
Sachs representative declined to respond to queries on the record.
The investigations and fines were a blow to Goldman's reputation and its bottom line, but
the regulatory reforms being debated had the potential to threaten Goldman's entire business
model. Even before the 2008 crash, the firm's lobbying spending had
grown under Lloyd Blankfein and Cohn. By 2010, the year financial reforms were being drafted,
Goldman spent $4.6
million for the services of 49 lobbyists. Their ranks included some of the most well-connected
figures in Washington, including Democrat Richard Gephardt, a former House majority leader, and
Republican Trent Lott, a former Senate majority leader, who had stepped down from the Senate
two years earlier.
Despite all those lobbyists on the payroll, Goldman made its case primarily through proxies
during the debate over financial reform. "The name Goldman Sachs was so radioactive it worked
to their disadvantage to be tied to an issue," said Marcus Stanley, then a staffer for
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and now policy director of Americans for Financial Reform.
Instead, Goldman lobbied through industry groups.
Goldman's people likely knew that all of Wall Street's lobbying might could not stop the
passage of the sprawling 2010 legislative package dubbed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act. Obama was putting his muscle behind reform -- "We simply cannot accept
a system in which hedge funds or private equity firms inside banks can place huge, risky bets
that are subsidized by taxpayers," he said in one
speech -- and the Democrats enjoyed majorities in both houses of Congress. "For Goldman
Sachs, the battle was over the final language," said Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets, a
Washington, D.C., lobby group that pushes for tighter financial reforms. "That way they at
least had a fighting chance in the next round, when everyone turned their attention to the
regulators."
There was a lot for Goldman Sachs to dislike about Dodd-Frank. There were small annoyances,
such as "say on pay," which ordered companies to give shareholders input on executive
compensation, a source of potential embarrassment to a company that gave out $73 million in
compensation for a single year's work -- as Goldman paid Cohn in 2007. There were large
annoyances, such as the requirement
that financial institutions deemed too big to fail, like Goldman, create a wind-down plan in
case of disaster. There were the measures that would interfere with Goldman's core businesses,
such as a provision instructing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate the
trading of derivatives. And yet nothing mattered to Goldman quite like the Volcker Rule, which
would protect banks' solvency by limiting their freedom to make speculative trades with their
own money. Unless Goldman could initiate what Stanley called the "complexity two-step" -- win a
carve-out so a new rule wouldn't interfere with legitimate business and then use that carve-out
to render a rule toothless -- Volcker would slam the door shut on the entire direction in which
Blankfein and Cohn had taken Goldman.
It was 5:30 a.m. on Friday, June 25, 2010, when a joint House-Senate conference committee
approved
the final language of Dodd-Frank. By Sunday, an industry attorney named Annette Nazareth -- a
former top SEC official whose firm counts Goldman Sachs among its clients -- had already sent
off a heavily annotated copy of the 848-page bill to colleagues at her old agency. It was just
the first salvo in a lobbying juggernaut.
Within a few months, Cohn himself was in Washington to meet
with a governor of the Federal Reserve, one of the key agencies charged with implementing
Volcker. The visitors log at the CFTC, the agency Dodd-Frank put in charge of derivatives
reform, shows that Cohn traveled to D.C. to personally meet with CFTC staffers at least six
times between 2010 and 2016. Cohn also came to the capital for meetings at the SEC, another
agency responsible for the Volcker Rule. There, he met with SEC chair Mary Jo White and other
commissioners. "I seem to be in Washington every week trying to explain to them the unintended
consequences of overregulation," Cohn said in a talk he gave to business students at Sacred
Heart University in 2015.
"Gary was the tip of the spear for Goldman to beat back regulatory reform," said Kelleher,
the financial reform lobbyist. "I used to pass him going into different agencies. They brought
him in when they wanted the big gun to finish off, to kill the wounded."
Democrats lost their majority in the House that November, and Goldman threw its weight
behind the spate of Republican bills that followed, aimed at taking apart Dodd-Frank piece by
piece. Goldman spent more than $4 million for the services of 45 lobbyists in 2011 and $3.5
million a year in 2012 and 2013. Its lobbying spending was nearly as high in the years after
passage of Dodd-Frank as it was the year the bill was introduced.
Goldman lobbyists dug in on a range of issues that would become top priorities for
Republicans in the wake of Donald Trump's electoral victory. Records from the Center for
Responsive Politics show that Goldman lobbyists worked to promote corporate tax cuts, such as
on the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 and Senate legislation aimed at extending some $200
billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses. Goldman lobbied for a bill to fund
economically critical infrastructure projects, presumably on behalf of its Public Sector and
Infrastructure group. Goldman had seven lobbyists working on the JOBS Act, which would make it
easier for companies to go public, another bottom-line issue to a company that underwrote $27
billion in IPOs last year. In 2016, Goldman had eight lobbyists dedicated to the Financial
CHOICE Act, which would have undone most of Dodd-Frank in one fell swoop -- a bill the House
revived in April.
Yet defanging the Volcker Rule remained the firm's top priority. Promoted by former Fed
Chair Paul Volcker, the rule would prohibit banks from committing more than 3 percent of their
core assets to in-house private equity and hedge funds in the business of buying up properties
and businesses with the goal of selling them at a profit. One harbinger of the financial crisis
had been the collapse in the summer of 2007 of a pair of Bear Stearns hedge funds that had
invested heavily in subprime loans. That 3 percent cap would have had a big impact on Goldman,
which maintained a separate private equity group and operated its own internal hedge funds. But
it was the restrictions Volcker placed on proprietary trading that most threatened Goldman.
Prop trading was a profit center inside many large banks, but nowhere was it as critical as
at Goldman. A 2011 report by one Wall Street analyst revealed that prop trading accounted for
an 8 percent share of JPMorgan Chase's annual revenues, 9 percent of Bank of America's, and 27
percent of Morgan Stanley's. But prop trading made up 48 percent of Goldman's. By one
estimate , the
Volcker Rule could cost Goldman Sachs $3.7 billion in revenue a year.
When regulators finalized a new Volcker Rule in 2013, Better Markets declared it a "major
defeat for Wall Street." Yet the victory for reformers was precarious. "Just changing a few
words could dramatically change the scope of the rule -- to the tune of billions of dollars for
some firms," said former Senate staffer Tyler Gellasch, who helped write the rule. Volcker gave
banks until July 2015 -- the five-year anniversary of Dodd-Frank -- to bring themselves into
compliance. Yet apparently the Volcker Rule had been written for other financial institutions,
not elite firms like Goldman Sachs. "Goldman Sachs has been on a shopping spree with its own
money," began a New York Times article in January 2015. The bank used its own funds to buy a
mall in Utah, apartments in Spain, and a European ink company. Paul Volcker expressed
disappointment that banks were still making big proprietary bets, as did the two senators most
responsible for writing the rule into law. That June, Cohn appeared to reassure investors that
Goldman would find a workaround. Speaking at an investor conference, he said Goldman was
"transforming our equity investing activities to continue to meet client needs while complying
with Volcker."
Goldman had five years to prepare for some version of a Volcker Rule. Yet a loophole granted
banks sufficient time to dispose of "illiquid assets" without causing undue harm -- a loophole
that might even cover the assets Goldman had only recently purchased, despite the impending
compliance deadline. The Fed nonetheless granted the firm additional time to sell illiquid
investments worth billions of dollars. "Goldman is brilliant at exercising access and influence
without fingerprints," Kelleher said.
By mid-2016, Goldman, along with Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, was petitioning the Fed
for an additional five years to comply with Volcker -- which would take the banks well into a
new administration. All Blankfein and Cohn had to do was wait for a new Congress and a new
president who might back their efforts to flush all of Dodd-Frank. Then Goldman could continue
the risky and lucrative habits it had adopted since traders like Cohn had taken over the firm
-- the financial crisis be damned -- and continue raking in billions in profits each year.
Goldman's political giving changed in the wake of Dodd-Frank. Dating back to at least 1990,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics, people associated with the firm and its
political action committees contributed more
to Democrats than Republicans. Yet in the years since financial reform, Goldman, once Obama's
second-largest political donor, shifted its campaign contributions to Republicans. During the
2008 election cycle, for instance, Goldman's people and PACs contributed $4.8 million to
Democrats and $1.7 million to Republicans. By the 2012 cycle, the opposite happened, with
Goldman giving $5.6 million to Republicans and $1.8 million to Democrats. Cohn's personal
giving followed the same path. Cohn gave $26,700 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee in 2006 and $55,500 during the 2008 election cycle, and none to its GOP equivalent.
But Cohn donated $30,800 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2012 and another
$33,400 to the National Republican Congressional Committee in 2015, without contributing a dime
to the DSCC. Cohn gave $5,000 to Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown weeks after news broke
that Elizabeth Warren -- an outspoken critic of Goldman and other Wall Street players -- might
try to capture his U.S. Senate seat, which she did in 2012.
Goldman Sachs, under Cohn and Blankfein, was hardly chastened, continuing to play fast and
loose with existing rules even as it plunged millions of dollars into fending off new ones. In
2010, the SEC ran a sting operation looking for banks willing to trade favorable assessments by
its stock analysts for a piece of a Toys R Us IPO if the company went public. Goldman took the
bait, for which they would pay a $5 million fine. An employee working out of Goldman's Boston
office drafted speeches, vetted a running mate, and negotiated campaign contracts for the state
treasurer during his run for Massachusetts governor in 2010, despite a rule forbidding
municipal bond dealers from making significant political contributions to officials who can
award them business. According to the SEC, Goldman had underwritten $9 billion in bonds for
Massachusetts in the previous two years, generating $7.5 million in fees. Goldman paid $12
million to settle the matter in 2012.
Just two years later, Goldman officials were again summoned by the Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations to address charges that the bank under Cohn and Blankfein had
boosted its profits by building a "virtual monopoly" in order to inflate aluminum prices by as
much as $3 billion.
The last few years have brought more unwanted attention. In 2015, the U.S. Justice
Department launched an investigation into Goldman's role in the alleged theft of billions of
dollars from a development fund the firm had helped create for the government of Malaysia.
Federal regulators in New York state fined Goldman $50 million because its leaders failed to
effectively supervise a banker who leaked stolen confidential government information from the
Fed, which hit the
firm with another $36.3 million in penalties. In December, the CFTC fined Goldman $120 million for
trying to rig interest rates to profit the firm.
Politically, 2016 would prove a strange year for Goldman. Bernie Sanders clobbered Hillary
Clinton for pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from Goldman, while
Trump attacked Ted Cruz for being "in bed with" Goldman Sachs. (Cruz's wife Heidi was a
managing director in Goldman's Houston office until she took leave to work on her husband's
presidential campaign.) Goldman would have "total control" over Clinton, Trump said at a
February 2016 rally, a point his campaign reinforced in a two-minute ad that ran the weekend
before Election Day. An image of Blankfein flashed across the screen as Trump warned about the
global forces that "robbed our working class."
Goldman's giving in the presidential race appears to reflect polls predicting a Clinton win
and the firm's desire for a political restart on deregulation. People who identified themselves
as Goldman Sachs employees gave less than
$5,000 to the Trump campaign compared to the $341,000 that the firm's people and PACs
contributed
to Clinton. Goldman Sachs is relatively small compared to retail banking giants.
Yet, according to the Center for Responsive
Politics , no bank outspent Goldman Sachs during the 2016 political cycle. Its PACs and
people associated with the firm made $5.6 million in political contributions in 2015 and 2016.
Even including all donations to Clinton, 62 percent of Goldman's giving ended up in the coffers
of Republican candidates, parties, or conservative outside groups.
5. TROJAN HORSE
There's ultimately no great mystery why Donald Trump selected Gary Cohn for a top
post in his administration, despite his angry rhetoric about Goldman Sachs. There's the high
regard the president holds for anyone who is rich -- and the instant legitimacy Cohn conferred
upon the administration within business circles. Cohn's appointment reassured bond markets
about the unpredictable new president and lent his administration credibility it lacked among
Fortune 100 CEOs, none of whom had donated to his campaign. Ego may also have played a role.
Goldman Sachs would never do business with Trump, the developer who resorted to foreign banks
and second-tier lenders to bankroll his projects. Now Goldman's president would be among those
serving in his royal court.
Who can say precisely why Cohn, a Democrat, said yes when Trump asked him to be his top
economic aide? No doubt Cohn has been asking himself that question in recent weeks. But he'd
hit a ceiling at Goldman Sachs. In September 2015, Goldman announced that Blankfein had
lymphoma, ramping up speculation that Cohn would take over the firm. Yet four months later,
after undergoing chemotherapy, Blankfein was back in his office and plainly not going anywhere.
Cohn was 56 years old when he was invited to Trump Tower. An influential job inside the White
House meant a face-saving exit -- and one offering a huge financial advantage.
Trump spoke of the great financial price Cohn paid to join him in the White House during his
speech in Cedar Rapids. But something like the opposite was true. A huge amount of Cohn's
wealth was tied up in Goldman stock. By entering government, he could sell his stake in the
firm to comply with federal ethics laws. That way he could diversify his holdings and avoid
roughly $50 million in capital gains taxes -- at least until he sold the replacement
assets.
A job in the White House might also prove an outlet for his frustrations with politicians
and regulators intent on reining in the worst impulses of Wall Street. Trump was Trump, but he
had also vowed to dismantle financial reform. "Dodd-Frank has made it impossible for bankers to
function," Trump said during the campaign. The new president had the potential to serve as a
vessel for Goldman's corporate interests.
"Maybe the one thing that holds this administration together is a belief that markets know
best, and the least regulation is the best regulation," said Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets.
"Goldman's interests fit with that very nicely."
Trump had given Steve Mnuchin, his campaign finance chair, the grander title. But taking
over as Treasury secretary meant being confirmed by the Senate. Mnuchin's confirmation vote was
delayed after it was revealed that he'd neglected to list $95 million in assets (including
homes in New York, Los Angeles, and the Hamptons) on his Senate Finance Committee disclosure
forms and failed to disclose his ties to an offshore hedge fund registered in the Cayman
Islands. Mnuchin was not confirmed until mid-February. The president's pick for commerce
secretary, Wilbur Ross, a financier who had bailed out several of Trump's casinos a few decades
earlier, was not confirmed until the end of February.
As a presidential aide, Cohn did not need Senate approval. He was part of the skeletal crew
that arrived at the White House on day one, giving him a critical head start on wielding his
clout and cultivating his relationship with the new president. At that point, Trump was
summoning Cohn to the Oval Office for impromptu meetings as many as
five times a day .
In early February, Trump signed an executive order giving his Treasury secretary 120 days to
give him a hit list of regulations the administration could eliminate. But with Mnuchin yet to
be confirmed, the task appeared to land in Cohn's eager hands. He was standing at the
president's shoulder when Trump said, "We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank." Shares
in Goldman Sachs, which had jumped by 28 percent after the election, rose another $6 a share
that day. Soon Cohn was coordinating Trump's plans not only for rolling back regulations, but
also for creating jobs and slashing taxes. He met with a health care specialist, along with
House Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republican leaders, to discuss alternatives to the Affordable
Care Act.
Proximity is power inside any White House, especially in this one, where policy often seems
shaped by Trump's last conversation. Treasury is several blocks away, while Cohn's office was
in the West Wing, directly across the hall from Bannon's. Operating within a chaotic
administration, Cohn was
reportedly energized and focused, working around the clock. Cohn is a tenacious
practitioner who, after ascending to the heights of Goldman Sachs, could teach a master class
on the art of seizing a leadership vacuum and building alliances. On day 39 of the new
administration, the White House sent out a press release introducing the "best-in-class team"
Cohn had assembled "to drive President Trump's bold plan for job creation and economic growth."
The 13 advisers included familiar figures who had worked for George W. Bush or his father, but
they also included at least three former lobbyists so conflicted they would need an ethics
waiver to work in the White House. For instance,
Michael Catanzaro , the man Cohn chose to oversee energy policy, was until last year a
lobbyist for such oil, gas, and coal companies as Devon Energy and Talen Energy. Shahira Knight
had been a lobbyist for Fidelity, the mutual fund giant, before joining Cohn's team.
Cohn's strategy in those early months was to make himself indispensable to the new
president. Cohn emerged as one of the few people around Trump comfortable interrupting him
during a meeting or openly disagreeing on points of policy. The New York Times reported that
Trump often turned to Cohn during a meeting and asked him directly, "What do you want to do?"
Early on, Trump referred to Cohn as "one of my geniuses" -- a quote Reuters attributed to a
"source close to Cohn."
Soon, major media were painting Cohn as a leading centrist inside the Trump White House
because he had staked out positions on immigration, international alliances, and global warming
at odds with Bannon's hard-right nationalism. Bannon and his allies only bolstered this
narrative by characterizing "Carbon Tax Cohn" and his allies, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump,
as interlopers -- "the Democrats," as some inside the White House called them. "Within Trump's
Inner Circle, a Moderate Voice Captures the President's Ear," read the headline of a Cohn
profile in the Washington Post.
"Led by Gary Cohn and Dina Powell -- two former Goldman Sachs executives often aligned with
Trump's elder daughter and his son-in-law -- the group and its broad network of allies are the
targets of suspicion, loathing and jealousy from their more ideological West Wing colleagues,"
the Washington Post reported. Fueling the rage of the ideologues, Cohn and his allies were
largely winning. Trump dropped Bannon from the National Security Council and elevated Powell to
deputy national security adviser. When, after Charlottesville, false reports leaked that Cohn
was so disgusted with the president he was resigning, blue-chip stocks slid down. Instead,
Bannon was out. Cohn, despite reports that he invoked Trump's wrath for critical remarks to the
Financial Times, was still in and expected to deliver the president a win on corporate
taxes.
On the day it was announced that he was joining the Trump administration, Cohn said on a
goodbye podcast for Goldman Sachs, "You look at the size of our capital. You look at the size
of our balance sheet. You look at the size of our people -- it's just enormous." More than $40
billion had flowed into the bank in 2016, bringing the bank's assets under management to a
record $1.38 trillion. That meant pressure to find ways to put that money to work -- an
enormous challenge if regulators finally shut down Goldman's prop trading arm.
How exactly could Cohn recuse himself from matters involving Goldman when almost every
aspect of his job has the potential to either grow Goldman's profits and inflate its stock
price -- or tank them both?
"To the extent Goldman Sachs is a direct party in a matter, Gary will recuse himself," a
source familiar with the situation said. But, the source added, "As NEC director, Gary is going
to touch on matters on the day-to-day economy as a whole and Goldman Sachs is a participant in
the economy, thus Gary will indirectly touch on things that affect Goldman Sachs along with
other banks and institutions."
Yet rather than publicly recuse himself on attempts to undo Dodd-Frank, Cohn has led the
charge from inside the White House. On that matter, Cohn is a walking, talking conflict of
interest .
While at Goldman, Cohn had personally met with officials at the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission to discuss the derivatives reform plank of Dodd-Frank, an arena in which Goldman is
a dominant player. He had taken issue with rules imposed by Dodd-Frank that require banks to
keep more capital on hand. Requiring banks to hold more money in reserve made them
"unequivocally" safer than before 2008, he said in a 2015 interview while still Goldman's
president, but he complained that Goldman was now able to lend less money, hurting profits. And
then there's the Volcker Rule. Cohn, while still president of the firm, had traveled to D.C. at
least twice to personally lobby regulators about its implementation.
These days, it can be hard to tell whether Cohn is speaking as a high-ranking White House
official or a former Goldman Sachs executive.
In the wake of Trump's February call for a rollback in financial regulations, Cohn vowed in
an interview with Bloomberg TV, "We're going to attack all aspects of Dodd-Frank." The
first example he gave: the Volcker Rule, which he cast as harmful to the country's competitive
advantage. In an
interview that same day with Fox Business, he homed in on another Goldman obsession:
Dodd-Frank's capital requirements. "Banks are forced to hoard money because they are forced to
hoard capital, and they can't take any risks," he said. Mortgage, auto, credit card lending,
and commercial lending are all up since 2010. Yet Cohn told Fox viewers, "We need to get banks
back in the lending business, that's our No. 1 objective."
Roy Smith, a former Goldman partner now teaching at the NYU Stern School of Business, argues
that Cohn should avoid the administration's effort to unwind Dodd-Frank altogether, but "at a
very minimum he has to excuse himself whenever the discussion turns to Volcker." But Smith said
he has trouble imagining Cohn leaving the room when Volcker comes up. "The hard part for
someone like Cohn is that he knows where all the pain points are with Volcker and other parts
of Dodd-Frank," Smith said. "His every instinct would be to get involved."
Beyond deregulation, two other pillars of Trump's economic plan -- cutting taxes and
investing in infrastructure -- would have dramatic impacts on Goldman's bottom line.
Thanks to loopholes, many Fortune 500 corporations pay
little or no corporate income tax at all. By contrast, Goldman Sachs typically pays taxes
near the official 35 percent federal tax rate. In 2014, for instance, Goldman paid $3.9 billion
in taxes on profits of $12.4 billion, or 31 percent. Last year, the firm's tax bill was $2.7
billion on profits of $10.3 billion, or 28 percent. In that same Fox Business interview, Cohn
said that "lower corporate taxes" was the White House's "starting point" on tax reform; cuts to
personal income taxes were a secondary concern.
Under the plan Cohn and Mnuchin announced last spring, what Cohn called "one of the biggest
tax cuts in the American history," corporate taxes would be capped at 15 percent. If Cohn
succeeds, Goldman will save massive sums: At that rate, Goldman would have paid $2 billion less
in taxes in 2014, $1.4 billion less in 2015, and $1.4 billion less in 2016. The Koch brothers'
network of political groups has already spent millions of dollars to promote the proposal. Even
Blankfein, who the Trump campaign singled out in the commercial it ran in the final days of the
campaign, acknowledged in a
voicemail to employees that Trump's commitment to tax cuts, deregulation, and infrastructure
"will be good for our clients and our firm."
The details of the president's "$1 trillion" infrastructure plan are similarly favorable to
Goldman. As laid out in the administration's 2018 budget, the government would spend only $200
billion on infrastructure over the coming decade. By structuring "that funding to incentivize
additional non-Federal funding" -- tax breaks and deals that privatize roads, bridges, and
airports -- the government could take credit for "at least $1 trillion in total infrastructure
spending," the budget reads.
It was as if Cohn were still channeling his role as a leader of Goldman Sachs when, at the
White House in May, he offered this advice to executives: "We say, 'Hey, take a project you
have right now, sell it off, privatize it, we know it will get maintained, and we'll reward you
for privatizing it.'" "The bigger the thing you privatize, the more money we'll give you,"
continued Cohn. By "we," he clearly meant the federal government; by "you," he appeared to
be speaking, at least in part, about Goldman Sachs, whose Public Sector and Infrastructure
group
arranges the financing on large-scale public sector deals. "Goldman Sachs is one of the
largest infrastructure fund managers globally," according to infrastructure advisory firm
InfraPPP
Partners , "having raised more than $10 billion of capital since the inception of the
business in 2006." Lost in the infamous press conference the president gave in the lobby of
Trump Tower a few days after Charlottesville, with Cohn and Mnuchin visibly uncomfortable at
his right flank, were Trump's remarks on infrastructure, the ostensible purpose of the event.
The thrust was that the president would grease the wheels for project approvals by signing an
executive order rolling back environmental impact requirements and other elements of an
"overregulated permitting process."
In countless other ways, Cohn is positioned to help the firm that has been so good to him
over the years. The country's National Economic Council adviser might caution a president
against running too large a deficit, especially amid a healthy economy. But Goldman Sachs is in
the business of finding investors to underwrite government debt. An economic adviser might
caution a populist president that corporate inversions often cost jobs and tax revenue.
Instead, Trump has ordered a review of policies Obama put in place to discourage them -- good
news for Cohn's former colleagues. Transparency has been a watchword of initial public
offerings dating back at least to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, but easing those
rules, a step Goldman has sought, could potentially generate hundreds of millions of dollars in
fees for investment banks such as Goldman. The SEC announced in June that it would allow any
company going public to withhold details of its finances and strategies, an exemption
previously available only to firms with under $1 billion in revenue -- more good tidings for
Goldman. Just loosening the rules for IPOs, said Tyler Gellasch, the former Senate staffer,
"could mean hundreds of millions of dollars more to Goldman."
In June, the Treasury Department released a statement of principles about the
administration's approach to financial regulation focused on promoting "liquid and vibrant
markets." Not surprisingly, the report included a call to ease capital requirements and
substantially amend the Volcker Rule.
It's Cohn's influence over the country's regulators that worries Dennis Kelleher, the
financial reform lobbyist. "To him, what's good for Wall Street is good for the economy,"
Kelleher said of Cohn. "Maybe that makes sense when a guy has spent 26 years at Goldman, a
company who has repaid his loyalties and sweat with a net worth in the hundreds of millions."
Kelleher recalls those who lost a home or a chunk of their retirement savings during a
financial crisis that Cohn helped precipitate. "They're still suffering," he said. "Yet now
Cohn's in charge of the economy and talking about eliminating financial reform and basically
putting the country back to where it was in 2005, as if 2008 didn't happen. I've started the
countdown clock to the next financial crash, which will make the last one look mild."
This article was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation
Institute.
"... Generally speaking, neoliberalism is a set of social, cultural, and political-economic forces that puts competition at the center of social life. According to neoliberalism, government's charge is not the care and security of citizens, but rather the promotion of market competition. In the neoliberal imagination, public social infrastructures (such as social security, unemployment benefits, public education) are believed to squash entrepreneurialism and individualism and breed dependency and bureaucracy. ..."
"... Gramsci's question is still pressing: How and why do ordinary working folks come to accept a system where wealth is produced by their collective labors and energies but appropriated individually by only a few at the top? The theory of hegemony suggests that the answer to this question is not simply a matter of direct exploitation and control by the capitalist class. Rather, hegemony posits that power is maintained through ongoing, ever-shifting cultural processes of winning the consent of the governed, that is, ordinary people like you and me. ..."
"... As Figure 1.1 shows, neoliberal hegemony works to erase this line between public and private and to create an entire society -- in fact, an entire world -- based on private, market competition. In this way, neoliberalism represents a radical reinvention of liberalism and thus of the horizons of hegemonic struggle. Crucially, within neoliberalism, the state's function does not go away; rather, it is deconstructed and reconstructed tow ard the new' end of expanding private markets. ..."
"... At this point, neoliberalism was still swimming upstream, as the postwar era ushered in a new' conjuncture that David Harvey calls embedded liberalism. ..."
"... Embedded liberalism was premised on a "class compromise" between the interests of workers and those of capitalists. In the name of peace, general prosperity, and global capitalism, a hegemonic consensus emerged "that the state should focus on full employment, economic growth, and the welfare of its citizens, and that state power should be freely deployed, alongside of or, if necessary, intervening in or even substituting for market processes to achieve these ends." 4 ..."
"... Neoliberalism developed largely as a coordinated political response to the hegemony of embedded liberalism. As Harvey explains, it was a project "to disembed capital from these constraints." 6 Indeed, the struggle for neoliberal hegemony waged a robust and successful class war on the "compromise" of embedded liberalism by developing, promoting, and implementing a new version of individual-liberty liberalism. ..."
"... As the system of embedded liberalism was taking root and establishing its dominance in national and international affairs, neoliberals were working on the ground: creating think tanks, forging political alliances, and infiltrating universities. During this second phase, neoliberalism emerged as a "thought collective": a "multilevel, multiphase, multi-sector approach to the building of political capacity to incubate, critique, and promulgate ideas." 7 ..."
"... The Neoliberal Thought Collective, as Philip Mirowski coined it, was a vertically integrated network of organizations and people focused on radically shifting the [concensus. ] ..."
Generally speaking, neoliberalism is a set of social, cultural, and political-economic forces that puts competition at the
center of social life. According to neoliberalism, government's charge is not the care and security of citizens, but rather the promotion
of market competition. In the neoliberal imagination, public social infrastructures (such as social security, unemployment benefits,
public education) are believed to squash entrepreneurialism and individualism and breed dependency and bureaucracy.
Competition, on the other hand, is heralded to ensure efficiency and incite creativity. Spurred by competition, individuals, organizations,
companies, and even the government itself, will seek to optimize and innovate, creating a truly free social world where the best
people and ideas come out on top. Put a little differently, neoliberalism aims to create a market-based society, where there are
only competing private enterprises.
Since the late 1970s, neoliberal ideas have increasingly guided the policies and practices of governments and other social institutions,
and as a result, we have come to live in competition with ourselves, others, and our social world.
...In a neoliberal society, the capitalist market is no longer imagined as a distinct arena where goods are valued and exchanged;
rather, the market is, or ideally should be, the basis for all human activities.
...We are necessarily interdependent beings, vulnerable and connected to one another, as our lives are supported and made possible
by a number of infrastructures (e.g., schools, roads and bridges, communication) that bring us into relation with one another.
We need each other. We need social cooperation and a commitment to a common, collective good if we are all going to make it in
this world.
Neoliberalism and its diffusion of competition throughout society make the infrastructures that undergird our lives profoundly
unstable, while simultaneously diminishing our senses of interdependence and social connection. As we will see, living in competition
paradoxically undercuts what enables our lives -- that is, our social connections and infrastructures -- while telling us to assume
more and more responsibility through self-enclosed individualism, thereby squashing our capacities for coming together, trusting
and caring for each other, and organizing for social change.
... ... ...
In a culture composed ot anxious, sell-enclosed individuals, where market competition defines all of social life, we need now,
more than ever, to see the social constructedness of our identities, worlds, and everyday lives. For neoliberalism's culture of living
in competition is so entrenched that only a cultural studies perspective can produce the forms of knowledge we need to imagine and
build new worlds. Indeed, a cultural studies perspective understands that possibilities of resistance and transformation are everywhere.
As Grossberg puts it,
power is never able to totalize itself. There are always fissures and fault lines that may become the active sites of change.
Power never quite accomplishes everything it might like to everywhere, and there is always the possibility of changing the structures
and organization of power.7
See, here's the thing; there's a gigantic paradox at the heart of neoliberal culture. On one hand, as we will see, neoliberalism
presents itself as a totalizing situation where resistance and transformation seem impossible, as living in competition has come
to define all aspects of our lives. On the other hand, though, neoliberalism's power over our lives is incredibly tenuous; for, as
mentioned earlier, I am convinced that most of us are yearning for a vastly different world, one that is built upon and nurtures
our interdependencies and shared vulnerabilities, not self-enclosed individualism and living in competition.
... ... ...
1 should note that, within academia, neoliberalism is a controversial term. Scholars continue to debate its usefulness. On one
hand, for some, neoliberalism is a buzzword, a catchphrase; it is a term that is so often repeated and invoked that it has lost its
meaning. According to these critiques, neoliberalism is presented as a scary monster that is everywhere and nowhere all at once.
It has come to figure as shorthand for everything that is evil in our world, and as a result, it ends up teaching us very little
about what specifically is wrong, how exactly we got here, and what actually can be done to change course. Thus, many scholars advocate
not using the term at all. On the other hand, other scholars prefer not to use the term because they argue that it is misleading.
For them, neoliberalism is simply an advanced form of liberal capitalism. There's nothing really new or neo here, so why overstate
and confuse things with the prefix?
However, despite these critiques, I hang onto the term neoliberalism. My wager in doing so is that writing this book as a critical
study of neoliberal culture gives us a way to map our current conjuncture. It allows us to hold together the "specific ensemble of
social, cultural, and economic forces" at work in our world and, thus, to locate our lives in interrelation with those of others.
Indeed, I have found during my work with students over the years that studying neoliberalism enables us to see our interconnectedness
and the new ways of living that sensing our interconnectedness opens up. We all suffer when we're forced to live in competition as
self-enclosed individuals. Studying the neoliberal conjuncture allows us to clearly identify the roots of our suffering, and to tr
ace our connections with others who are also suffering, although often in variegated ways. In other words, when w'e map our conjuncture,
we can see how our different lives are lived on common ground, which is a crucial step to creating a world beyond competition.
At this point, you might have a sense of what neoliberalism is, but you're probably still fuzzy on the details. This chapter starts
to clear things up by charting the making of our neoliberal conjuncture. By tracing the history and development of neoliberalism,
we will leant how competition came to be the driving force in our everyday lives. Specifically, we will examine the rise of neoliberal
hegemony in four phases.
Table 1.1 Four Phases of Neoliberalism
Phase I 1920-1950 Theoretical innovation
Phase II 1950-1980 Organizing, institution building, and knowledge production
Phase III 1980-2000 Crisis management and policy implementation
Phase IV 2000 -- Present Crisis ordinariness and precarity
As we will see, neoliberalism is far from natur and necessary; rather, it represents a clear political project that was organized,
struggled for, and won.
A NEW HEGEMONY
We begin our investigation with a historical account of the rise of neoliberal hegemony. Hegemony is a concept developed by Italian
Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was keen to account for the definitive role that culture played in legitimizing and sustaining capitalism
and its exploitation of the working classes. In our own context of extreme economic inequality, Gramsci's question is still pressing:
How and why do ordinary working folks come to accept a system where wealth is produced by their collective labors and energies but
appropriated individually by only a few at the top? The theory of hegemony suggests that the answer to this question is not simply
a matter of direct exploitation and control by the capitalist class. Rather, hegemony posits that power is maintained through ongoing,
ever-shifting cultural processes of winning the consent of the governed, that is, ordinary people like you and me.
In other words, if we want to really understand why and how phenomena like inequality and exploitation exist, we have to attend
to the particular, contingent, and often contradictory ways in which culture gets mobilized to forward the interests and power of
the ruling classes. According to Gramsci, there was not one ruling class, but rather a historical bloc, "a moving equilibrium" of
class interests and values. Hegemony names a cultural struggle for moral, social, economic, and political leadership; in this struggle,
a field -- or assemblage -- of practices, discourses, values, and beliefs come to be dominant. While this field is powerful and firmly
entrenched, it is also open to contestation. In other words, hegemonic power is always on the move; it has to keep winning our consent
to survive, and sometimes it fails to do so.
Through the lens of hegemony, we can think about the rise of neoliberalism as an ongoing political project -- and class struggle
-- to shift society's political equilibrium and create a new dominant field. Specifically, we are going to trace the shift from liberal
to neoliberal hegemony. This shift is represented in the two images below.
Previous versions of liberal hegemony imagined society to be divided into distinct public and private spheres. The public sphere
was the purview of the state, and its role was to ensure the formal rights and freedoms of citizens through the rule of law. The
private sphere included the economy and the domestic sphere of home and family.
For the most part, liberal hegemony was animated by a commitment to limited government, as the goal was to allow for as much freedom
in trade, associations, and civil society as possible, while preserving social order and individual rights. Politics took shape largely
around the line between public and private; more precisely, it was a struggle over where and how to draw the line. In other words,
within the field of liberal hegemony, politics was a question of how to define the uses and limits of the state and its public function
in a capitalist society. Of course, political parties often disagreed passionately about where and how to draw that line. As we'll
see below, many advocated for laissez-faire capitalism, while others argued for a greater public role in ensuring the health, happiness,
and rights of citizens. What's crucial though is that everyone agreed that there was a line to be drawn, and that there was a public
function for the state.
As Figure 1.1 shows, neoliberal hegemony works to erase this line between public and private and to create an entire society
-- in fact, an entire world -- based on private, market competition. In this way, neoliberalism represents a radical reinvention
of liberalism and thus of the horizons of hegemonic struggle. Crucially, within neoliberalism, the state's function does not go away;
rather, it is deconstructed and reconstructed tow ard the new' end of expanding private markets.
Consequently, contemporary politics take shape around questions of how best to promote competition. For the most part, politics
on both the left and right have been subsumed by neoliberal hegemony. For example, while neoliberalism made its debut in Western
politics with the right-wing administrations of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, leaders associated with the left have worked
to further neoliberal hegemony in stunning ways. As we will explore in more depth below and in die coming chapters, both U.S. presidents
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have governed to create a privatized, market society. In other words, there is both a left and a right
hegemonic horizon of neoliberalism. Thus, moving beyond neoliberalism will ultimately require a whole new field of politics.
It is important to see that the gradual shift from liberal to neoliberal hegemony was not inevitable or natural, nor was it easy.
Rather, what we now r call neoliberalism is the effect of a sustained hegemonic struggle over the course of the twentieth
and twentyfirst centuries to construct and maintain a new political equilibrium. Simply put, neoliberalism was, and continues to
be, struggled over, fought for, and w'on.
In Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliheral Politics, Daniel Stedman Jones charts the history of
the neoliberal project in three phases. The first phase saw the development of neoliberal ideas and philosophies in Europe during
the years between World War I and World War II, as a relatively small group of economists (including most notably those from Austria,
Germany, and France), wrestling with the rise of fascism, communism, and socialism, sought to envision a new liberal society that
would protect individual liberties and free markets. The second phase w as a period of institution building, knowledge production,
and organizing that enabled neoliberalism to cultivate a powerful base in culture and politics, especially in the U.S. and United
Kingdom. During this phase, neoliberalism developed into a "thought collective" and full-fledged political movement. In the third
phase, neoliberal ideas migrated from the margins to the center of political life as they came to shape global trade and development
suggested by the theory of hegemony, none of these phases were neat and clean; each was shot through with struggle and contingency.
1 am adding a fourth phase, which is the focus of this book. Here neoliberalism is not only a set of economic policies and political
discourses, but also a deeply entrenched sensibility of w ho we are and can become and of what is possible to do, both individually
and collectively. It is what Raymond Williams called "a structure of feeling." Thanks to a convergence of different social, economic,
and cultural forces, which we will explore throughout the following chapters, competition has become fully embedded in our lifeworlds:
it is our culture, our conjuncture, the air we breathe. More specifically, this fourth phase is characterized by widespread precarity,
where crisis becomes ordinary, a constant feature of everyday life. As we will learn in coming chapters, we are prompted to confront
the precarity neoliberalism brings to our lives with more neoliberalism, that is, with living in competition and self-enclosed individualism.
PHASE I: THEORETICAL INNOVATION
The Crisis of Liberalism and the Birth of the Social Welfare State
Neoliberalism emerged out of the crisis of liberalism that ultimately came to a head in the early twentieth century. It is crucial
to understand that liberal hegemony was never a coherent, unified phenomenon. Rather, it developed around a central political antagonism.
On one side were those who championed individual liberty (especially private property rights and free markets) above all else. They
argued against government intervention in private life, especially in the market. On the other side, social reformers believed that
government should be pursued for the common good and not just for individual liberties. In the decades leading up to the Great Depression,
it became clear that the individual-liberty side, which had long been dominant, was inadequate for managing huge transformations
in capitalism that were underway. These transformations included industrialization, urbanization, and internationalization, as well
as the rise of large-scale corporate firms that squeezed smaller market actors. Huge gaps formed between the political-economic elite,
the middle classes, and the poor. Simply put, liberalism was in crisis.
During this time of social, cultural, and economic upheaval, those espousing the common good gained political ground. Specifically,
the misery and devastation of the Great Depression solidified the gains for social reformers, opening a new era where a new, common-good
liberalism began to prevail. In the United States, President Franklin
Roosevelt's administration passed a comprehensive set of social policies designed to protect individuals from the unpredictable
and often brutal operations of capitalism. These included the following:
Reforming banking: The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 set up regulatory agencies to provide oversight to the stock markets
and financial sector, while enforcing the separation of commercial banking and speculative investment. Simply put, banks couldn't
gamble with your savings and future.
Strengthening labor: In 1935, the National Recovery Administration and the National Labor Relations Act were passed
to recognize labor unions and the rights of workers to organize. At the same time, the administration spurred employment through
the Public Works Administration, the Civil Works Administration, and the Works Progress Administration, while guaranteeing workers
a dignified retirement with the Social Security Act of 1935.
Promoting housing: A range of programs, policies, and agencies were established, including the Federal Housing Administration
and the U.S. Housing Authority, to encourage homeownership and provide housing to the poor and homeless. 1
Taken together, these policies marked the birth of the so-called social welfare state, albeit one that was limited in scope and
often highly exclusionary in practice. For example, a universal health care program was never realized. Many social groups, including
African-Americans, migrant farm workers, and women, were prohibited by law from receiving federal benefits such as social security
or unemployment. 3 Additionally, institutional racism plagued (as it still does) housing and banking institutions.
The Walter Lippmann Colloquium and the Birth of Neoliberalism
It is helpful to trace the emergence of our neoliberal conjuncture back to this moment where the common good was starting to win
the day via the establishment of a limited and exclusionary social welfare state. For, despite the fact that these social welfare
policies effectively "saved" capitalism from destroying itself, the individual-liberty side was deeply troubled. They feared that
a new and established the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) in 1947 to continue the work of dreaming up a new individual-liberty liberalism.
At this point, neoliberalism was still swimming upstream, as the postwar era ushered in a new' conjuncture that David Harvey
calls embedded liberalism.
Embedded liberalism was premised on a "class compromise" between the interests of workers and those of capitalists. In the
name of peace, general prosperity, and global capitalism, a hegemonic consensus emerged "that the state should focus on full employment,
economic growth, and the welfare of its citizens, and that state power should be freely deployed, alongside of or, if necessary,
intervening in or even substituting for market processes to achieve these ends." 4
A central piece of the embedded liberal compromise was the Bretton Woods Accord, which attempted to stabilize the global economy
by re-fixing currency rates to the gold standard. The idea was that national economies shouldn't be threatened by currency speculation
in the financial markets. All this meant that an infrastructure emerged to protect citizens' economic and social security. To ensure
the common good, capitalism must be embedded within "a web of social and political constraints." 5
Neoliberalism developed largely as a coordinated political response to the hegemony of embedded liberalism. As Harvey explains,
it was a project "to disembed capital from these constraints." 6 Indeed, the struggle for neoliberal hegemony waged a
robust and successful class war on the "compromise" of embedded liberalism by developing, promoting, and implementing a new version
of individual-liberty liberalism.
The Neoliberal Thought Collective
As the system of embedded liberalism was taking root and establishing its dominance in national and international affairs,
neoliberals were working on the ground: creating think tanks, forging political alliances, and infiltrating universities. During
this second phase, neoliberalism emerged as a "thought collective": a "multilevel, multiphase, multi-sector approach to the building
of political capacity to incubate, critique, and promulgate ideas." 7
The Neoliberal Thought Collective, as Philip Mirowski coined it, was a vertically integrated network of organizations and
people focused on radically shifting the [concensus. ]
"... Mirowski identifies three basic aspects of neoliberalism that the Left has failed to understand: the movement's intellectual history, the way it has transformed everyday life, and what constitutes opposition to it. Until we come to terms with them, Mirowski suggests, right-wing movements such as the Tea Party (a prominent player in the book) will continue to reign triumphant. ..."
"... Joining a long line of thinkers, most famously Karl Polanyi, Mirowski insists that a key error of the Left has been its failure to see that markets are always embedded in other social institutions. Neoliberals, by contrast, grasp this point with both hands -- and therefore seek to reshape all of the institutions of society, including and especially the state, to promote markets. Neoliberal ascendancy has meant not the retreat of the state so much as its remaking. ..."
"... he also recognizes that the neoliberals themselves have been canny about keeping the real nature of their project hidden through a variety of means. Neoliberal institutions tend to have what he calls a "Russian doll" structure, with the most central ones well hidden from public eyes. Mirowski coins an ironic expression, "the Neoliberal Thought Collective," for the innermost entities that formulate the movement's doctrine. The venerable Mont Pelerin Society is an NTC institution. Its ideas are frequently disseminated through venues which, formally at least, are unconnected to the center, such as academic economics departments. Thus, neoclassical economists spread the gospel of the free market while the grand project of remaking the state falls to others. ..."
"... At the same time as neoliberal commonsense trickles down from above, Mirowski argues that it also wells up from below, reinforced by our daily patterns of life. Social networking sites like Facebook encourage people to view themselves as perpetual cultural entrepreneurs, striving to offer a newer and better version of themselves to the world. Sites like LinkedIn prod their users to present themselves as a fungible basket of skills, adjustable to the needs of any employer, without any essential characteristics beyond a requisite subservience. Classical liberalism always assumes the coherent individual self as its basic unit. Neoliberalism, by contrast, sees people as little more than variable bundles of human capital, with no permanent interests or even attributes that cannot be remade through the market. For Mirowski, the proliferation of these forms of everyday neoliberalism constitute a "major reason the neoliberals have emerged from the crisis triumphant." ..."
"... Finally, Mirowski argues that the Left has too often been sucked in by neoliberalism's loyal opposition. Figures like Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman, while critical of austerity and supportive of the welfare state, accept the fundamental neoclassical economic precepts at the heart of neoliberal policy. Mirowski argues that we must ditch this tradition in its entirety. Even attempts to render its assumptions more realistic -- as in the case of behavioral economics, for example, which takes account of the ways real people diverge from the hyperrationality of homo economicus -- provide little succor for those seeking to overturn the neoliberals. ..."
"... Mirowski's insistence on the centrality of the state to the neoliberal project helps correct the unfortunate tendency of many leftists over the past decade to assent to neoliberal nostrums about the obsolescence of the state. Indeed, Mirowski goes further than many other critics who have challenged the supposed retreat of the state under neoliberalism. ..."
"... Loïc Wacquant, for instance, has described the "centaur state" of neoliberalism, in which a humanist liberalism reigns for the upper classes, while the lower classes face the punitive state apparatus in all its bestiality. ..."
"... Mirowski shows us that the world of the rich under neoliberalism in no way corresponds to the laissez-faire of classical liberalism. The state does not so much leave the rich alone as actively work to reshape the world in their interests, helping to create markets for the derivatives and securities that made (and then destroyed) so many of the fortunes of the recent past. The neoliberal state is an eminently interventionist one, and those mistaking it for the austere nightwatchman of libertarian utopianism have little hope of combating it. ..."
"... Mirowski's concern to disabuse his readers of the notion that the wing of neoliberal doctrine disseminated by neoclassical economists could ever be reformed produces some of the best sections of the book. His portrait of an economics profession in haggard disarray in the aftermath of the crisis is both comic and tragic, as the amusement value of the buffoonery on display diminishes quickly when one realizes the prestige still accorded to these figures. Reading his comprehensive examination of the discipline's response to the crisis, one is reminded of Freud's famous broken kettle. The professional economists' account of their role in the crisis went something like (a) there was no bubble and (b) bubbles are impossible to predict but (c) we knew it was a bubble all along. ..."
"... Though Krugman and Stiglitz have attacked concepts like the efficient markets hypothesis (which holds that prices in a competitive financial market reflect all relevant economic information), Mirowski argues that their attempt to do so while retaining the basic theoretical architecture of neoclassicism has rendered them doubly ineffective. ..."
"... First, their adoption of the battery of assumptions that accompany most neoclassical theorizing -- about representative agents, treating information like any other commodity, and so on -- make it nearly impossible to conclusively rebut arguments like the efficient markets hypothesis. ..."
To understand how a body of thought became an era of capitalism requires more than intellectual
history.
"What is going to come after neoliberalism?" It was the question on many radicals' lips, present
writer included, after the financial crisis hit in 2008. Though few were so sanguine about our prospects
as to repeat the suicidal optimism of previous radical movements ("After Hitler, Our Turn!"), the
feeling of the day was that the era of unfettered marketization was coming to a close. A new period
of what was loosely referred to as Keynesianism would be the inevitable result of a crisis caused
by markets run amok.
Five years later, little has changed. What comes after neoliberalism? More neoliberalism, apparently.
The prospects for a revived Left capable of confronting it appear grim.
Enter Philip Mirowski's Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived
the Financial Meltdown . Mirowski maintains that the true nature of neoliberalism has gone
unrecognized by its would-be critics, allowing the doctrine to flourish even in conditions, such
as a massive financial crisis, that would seem to be inimical to its survival. Leftists keep busy
tilting at the windmill of deregulation as the giants of neoliberalism go on pillaging unmolested.
Mirowski identifies three basic aspects of neoliberalism that the Left has failed to understand:
the movement's intellectual history, the way it has transformed everyday life, and what constitutes
opposition to it. Until we come to terms with them, Mirowski suggests, right-wing movements such
as the Tea Party (a prominent player in the book) will continue to reign triumphant.
The book begins with the war of ideas -- a conflict in which, Mirowski argues, the Left has been
far too generous in taking neoliberals at their word, or at least their best-publicized word. We
have, in effect, been suckered by kindly old Milton Friedman telling us how much better off we'd
all be if the government simply left us "free to choose." But neoliberals have at times been forthright
about their appreciation for the uses of state power. Markets, after all, do not simply create themselves.
Joining a long line of thinkers, most famously Karl Polanyi, Mirowski insists that a key error
of the Left has been its failure to see that markets are always embedded in other social institutions.
Neoliberals, by contrast, grasp this point with both hands -- and therefore seek to reshape all of
the institutions of society, including and especially the state, to promote markets. Neoliberal ascendancy
has meant not the retreat of the state so much as its remaking.
If Mirowski is often acidic about the Left's failure to understand this point, he also recognizes
that the neoliberals themselves have been canny about keeping the real nature of their project hidden
through a variety of means. Neoliberal institutions tend to have what he calls a "Russian doll" structure,
with the most central ones well hidden from public eyes. Mirowski coins an ironic expression, "the
Neoliberal Thought Collective," for the innermost entities that formulate the movement's doctrine.
The venerable Mont Pelerin Society is an NTC institution. Its ideas are frequently disseminated through
venues which, formally at least, are unconnected to the center, such as academic economics departments.
Thus, neoclassical economists spread the gospel of the free market while the grand project of remaking
the state falls to others.
At the same time as neoliberal commonsense trickles down from above, Mirowski argues that
it also wells up from below, reinforced by our daily patterns of life. Social networking sites like
Facebook encourage people to view themselves as perpetual cultural entrepreneurs, striving to offer
a newer and better version of themselves to the world. Sites like LinkedIn prod their users to present
themselves as a fungible basket of skills, adjustable to the needs of any employer, without any essential
characteristics beyond a requisite subservience. Classical liberalism always assumes the coherent
individual self as its basic unit. Neoliberalism, by contrast, sees people as little more than variable
bundles of human capital, with no permanent interests or even attributes that cannot be remade through
the market. For Mirowski, the proliferation of these forms of everyday neoliberalism constitute a
"major reason the neoliberals have emerged from the crisis triumphant."
Finally, Mirowski argues that the Left has too often been sucked in by neoliberalism's loyal
opposition. Figures like Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman, while critical of austerity and supportive
of the welfare state, accept the fundamental neoclassical economic precepts at the heart of neoliberal
policy. Mirowski argues that we must ditch this tradition in its entirety. Even attempts to render
its assumptions more realistic -- as in the case of behavioral economics, for example, which takes
account of the ways real people diverge from the hyperrationality of homo economicus -- provide
little succor for those seeking to overturn the neoliberals.
For Mirowski, these three failures of the Left go a long way toward explaining how neoliberals
have largely escaped blame for a crisis they created. The Left persistently goes after phantoms like
deregulation or smaller government, which neoliberals easily parry by pointing out that the regulatory
apparatus has never been bigger. At the same time, we ignore the deep roots of neoliberal ideology
in everyday life, deceiving ourselves as to the scale of the task in front of us.
Whatever criticisms of Mirowski's analysis are in order, much of it is compelling, particularly
in regard to the intellectual history of the NTC. Mirowski's insistence on the centrality of
the state to the neoliberal project helps correct the unfortunate tendency of many leftists over
the past decade to assent to neoliberal nostrums about the obsolescence of the state. Indeed, Mirowski
goes further than many other critics who have challenged the supposed retreat of the state under
neoliberalism.
Loïc Wacquant, for instance, has described the "centaur state" of neoliberalism, in which
a humanist liberalism reigns for the upper classes, while the lower classes face the punitive state
apparatus in all its bestiality. But Mirowski shows us that the world of the rich under
neoliberalism in no way corresponds to the laissez-faire of classical liberalism. The state does
not so much leave the rich alone as actively work to reshape the world in their interests, helping
to create markets for the derivatives and securities that made (and then destroyed) so many of the
fortunes of the recent past. The neoliberal state is an eminently interventionist one, and those
mistaking it for the austere nightwatchman of libertarian utopianism have little hope of combating
it.
It's here that we begin to see the strategic genius of neoliberal infrastructure, with its teams
of college economics professors teaching the wondrous efficacy of supply and demand on the one hand,
and the think tanks and policy shops engaged in the relentless pursuit of state power on the other.
The Left too often sees inconsistency where in fact there is a division of labor.
Mirowski's concern to disabuse his readers of the notion that the wing of neoliberal doctrine
disseminated by neoclassical economists could ever be reformed produces some of the best sections
of the book. His portrait of an economics profession in haggard disarray in the aftermath of the
crisis is both comic and tragic, as the amusement value of the buffoonery on display diminishes quickly
when one realizes the prestige still accorded to these figures. Reading his comprehensive examination
of the discipline's response to the crisis, one is reminded of Freud's famous broken kettle. The
professional economists' account of their role in the crisis went something like (a) there was no
bubble and (b) bubbles are impossible to predict but (c) we knew it was a bubble all along.
Incoherence notwithstanding, however, little in the discipline has changed in the wake of the
crisis. Mirowski thinks that this is at least in part a result of the impotence of the loyal opposition
-- those economists such as Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman who attempt to oppose the more viciously
neoliberal articulations of economic theory from within the camp of neoclassical economics. Though
Krugman and Stiglitz have attacked concepts like the efficient markets hypothesis (which holds that
prices in a competitive financial market reflect all relevant economic information), Mirowski argues
that their attempt to do so while retaining the basic theoretical architecture of neoclassicism has
rendered them doubly ineffective.
First, their adoption of the battery of assumptions that accompany most neoclassical theorizing
-- about representative agents, treating information like any other commodity, and so on -- make
it nearly impossible to conclusively rebut arguments like the efficient markets hypothesis.
Instead, they end up tinkering with it, introducing a nuance here or a qualification there. This
tinkering causes their arguments to be more or less ignored in neoclassical pedagogy, as economists
more favorably inclined toward hard neoliberal arguments can easily ignore such revisions and hold
that the basic thrust of the theory is still correct. Stiglitz's and Krugman's arguments, while receiving
circulation through the popular press, utterly fail to transform the discipline.
Mirowski also heaps scorn on the suggestion, sometimes made in leftist circles, that the problem
at the heart of neoclassical economics is its assumption of a hyperrational homo economicus
, relentlessly comparing equilibrium states and maximizing utility. Though such a revision may
be appealing to a certain radical romanticism, Mirowski shows that a good deal of work going on under
the label of behavioral economics has performed just this revision, and has come up with results
that don't differ substantively from those of the mainstream. The main problem with neoclassicism
isn't its theory of the human agent but rather its the theory of the market -- which is precisely
what behavioral economics isn't interested in contesting.
In all, Mirowski's indictment of the state of economic theory and its imbrication with the neoliberal
project is devastating. Unfortunately, he proves much less successful in explaining why
things have turned out as they have. The book ascribes tremendous power to the Neoliberal Thought
Collective, which somehow manages to do everything from controlling the economics profession to reshaping
the state to forging a new sense of the human self. The reader is left wondering how the NTC came
to acquire such power. This leads to the book's central flaw: a lack of any theory of the structure
of modern capitalism. Indeed, the NTC seems to operate in something of a vacuum, without ever confronting
other institutions or groups, such as the state or popular movements, with interests and agendas
of their own.
To be fair, Mirowski does offer an explanation for the failure of popular movements to challenge
neoliberalism, largely through his account of "everyday" neoliberalism. At its strongest, the book
identifies important strategic failures, such as Occupy's embrace of "a mimicry of media technologies
as opposed to concerted political mobilization." However, Mirowski extends the argument well beyond
a specific failure of the Occupy movement to propose a general thesis that developments like Facebook
and reality TV have transmitted neoliberal ideology to people who have never read Friedman and Hayek.
In claiming that this embodied or embedded ideology plays an important role in the failure of the
Left, he places far more explanatory weight on the concept of everyday neoliberalism than it is capable
of bearing.
At the simplest level, it's just not clear that everyday neoliberalism constitutes the kind of
block to political action that Mirowski thinks it does. No doubt, many people reading this article
right now simultaneously have another browser tab open to monster.com or LinkedIn, where they are
striving to present themselves as a fungible basket of skills to any employer that will have them.
In this economy, everyone has to hustle, and that means using all available means. That many of these
same readers have probably also done things like organize against foreclosures should give pause
to any blurring of the distinction between using various media technologies and embracing the ideology
Mirowski sees embodied in them.
Indeed, the ubiquity of participation in such technologies by people who support, oppose, or are
apathetic about neoliberalism points to a larger phenomenon on which Mirowski is silent: the labor
market. Put bluntly, it is difficult to imagine anyone engaging in the painfully strained self-advertisement
facilitated by LinkedIn in a labor market with, say, 2-percent unemployment. In such a market, in
which employers were competing for comparatively scarce workers, there would be very little need
for those workers to go through the self-abasing ritual of converting themselves into fungible baskets
of skills. In our current situation, by contrast, where secure and remunerative employment is comparatively
scarce, it is no surprise that people turn to whatever technologies are available to attempt to sell
themselves. As Joan Robinson put it, the only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not
being exploited by it.
In evaluating the role of everyday neoliberalism, it is also helpful to move, for the moment,
beyond the perspective of the United States, where the NTC has clearly had great success, and adopt
that of countries where resistance is significantly more developed, such as Venezuela or South Africa.
Especially in the former, popular movements have been notably successful in combating neoliberal
efforts to take over the state and reshape the economy, and have instead pushed the country in the
opposite direction. Is it really plausible that a main reason for this difference is that everyday
neoliberalism is more intense in the United States? I doubt it. For one thing, the strength of Venezuela's
radical movements, in comparison with the US, clearly antedates the developments (social media,
Here Comes Honey Boo Boo , and so on) that Mirowski discusses.
Moreover, it is just as plausible that the entrepreneurial culture he describes is even more extensive
in the slums of the global South, where neoliberal devastation has forced many poor households to
rely on at least one family member engaging in semi-legal arbitrage in goods salvaged from garbage
or made at home. Surely such activities provide a firmer foundation for commercial subjectivity than
having a 401(k). That resistance has grown in such circumstances suggests that looking to malignant
subjectivities to explain popular passivity is an analytic dead-end.
If everyday neoliberalism doesn't explain the comparative weakness of the US left, what does?
This is, of course, the key question, and I can do no more than gesture at an answer here. But I
would suggest that the specific histories of the institutions of the American left, from the Communist
Party to Students for a Democratic Society to labor unions, and the histories of the situations they
confronted, provide us with a more solid foundation for understanding our current weakness than the
hegemony of neoliberal culture does. Moreover, with a theory of capitalism that emphasizes the way
the structure of the system makes it both necessary and very difficult for most people to organize
to advance their interests, it becomes very easy to explain the persistence of a low level of popular
mobilization against neoliberalism in the context of a weakened left.
If Mirowski's account doesn't give us a good basis for explaining why popular resistance has been
so lacking in the US, it nonetheless suggests why he is so concerned with explaining the supposed
dominance of neoliberal ideology among the general population. From the beginning, he raises the
specter of right-wing resurgence, whether in the form of Scott Walker surviving the recall campaign
in Wisconsin, the Tea Party mania of 2010, or the success of right-wing parties in Europe. However,
much of this seems overstated, especially from a contemporary perspective. The Tea Party has, for
all intents and purposes, disappeared from the front lines of American politics, and the Republican
Party, while capable of enacting all kinds of sadistic policies on the state level, has remained
in a state of disarray on the national level since the 2006 congressional elections.
More fundamentally, the argument that the voting public embraces neoliberalism doesn't square
well with recent research by political scientists like Larry Bartels and Martin Gilens emphasizing
the profound disconnect between the policy preferences of the poor and what transpires in Washington.
What appears to be happening is less the general populace's incorporation into neoliberalism than
their exclusion from any institutions that would allow them to change it. Importantly, this alternative
explanation does not rely on the Left conceit that rebellion lurks perpetually just below the placid
social surface, ready to explode into radical insurgency at any moment. It simply contends that the
political passivity of neoliberalism's victims reflects a real diminution of their political options.
Mirowski's failure to address these larger institutional and structural dynamics vitiates much
of the explanatory power of his book. On a purely descriptive level, the sections on the intellectual
history of neoliberalism and the non-crisis of neoclassical economics illuminate many of the hidden
corners of neoliberal ideology. However, if Mirowski is right to suggest that we need to understand
neoliberalism better to be successful in fighting it -- and he surely is -- then much more is needed
to explain neoliberal success and Left failure.
To understand how a body of thought became an era of capitalism requires more than intellectual
history. It demands an account of how capitalism actually works in the period in question, and how
the ideas of a small group of intellectuals came to be the policy preferences of the rich. Mirowski
has given us an excellent foundation for understanding the doctrine, but it will remain for others
to explain its actual development.
"... The book was The Constitution of Liberty by Frederick Hayek . Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an outright racket. The philosophy was called neoliberalism . It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design. Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive. Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone. ..."
"... But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set out to close the gap. ..."
"... He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands. ..."
"... The general thrust is about the gradual hollowing out of the middle class (or more affluent working class, depending on the analytical terms being used), about insecurity, stress, casualisation, rising wage inequality. ..."
"... So Hayek, I feel, is like many theoreticians, in that he seems to want a pure world that will function according to a simple and universal law. The world never was, and never will be that simple, and current economics simply continues to have a blindspot for externalities that overwhelm the logic of an unfettered so-called free market. ..."
"... J.K. Galbraith viewed the rightwing mind as predominantly concerned with figuring out a way to justify the shift of wealth from the immense majority to an elite at the top. I for one regret acutely that he did not (as far as I know) write a volume on his belief in progressive taxation. ..."
"... The system that Clinton developed was an inheritance from George H.W. Bush, Reagan (to a large degree), Carter, with another large assist from Nixon and the Powell Memo. ..."
"... What's changed is the distribution of the gains in GDP growth -- that is in no small part a direct consequence of changes in policy since the 1970s. It isn't some "market place magic". We have made major changes to tax laws since that time. We have weakened collective bargaining, which obviously has a negative impact on wages. We have shifted the economy towards financial services, which has the tendency of increasing inequality. ..."
"... Wages aren't stagnating because people are working less. Wages have stagnated because of dumb policy choices that have tended to incentives looting by those at the top of the income distribution from workers in the lower parts of the economy. ..."
"... "Neoliberalism" is entirely compatible with "growth of the state". Reagan greatly enlarged the state. He privatized several functions and it actually had the effect of increasing spending. ..."
"... When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market. ..."
"... As for the rest, it's the usual practice of gathering every positive metric available and somehow attributing it to neoliberalism, no matter how tenuous the threads, and as always with zero rigour. Supposedly capitalism alone doubled life expectancy, supports billions of extra lives, invented the railways, and provides the drugs and equipment that keep us alive. As though public education, vaccines, antibiotics, and massive availability of energy has nothing to do with those things. ..."
"... I think the damage was done when the liberal left co-opted neo-liberalism. What happened under Bill Clinton was the development of crony capitalism where for example the US banks were told to lower their credit standards to lend to people who couldn't really afford to service the loans. ..."
The events that led to Donald Trump's election started in England in 1975. At a meeting a few months after Margaret Thatcher became
leader of the Conservative party, one of her colleagues, or so the story goes, was explaining what he saw as the core beliefs of
conservatism. She snapped open her handbag, pulled out a dog-eared book, and
slammed it on the table . "This is what we believe," she said. A political revolution that would sweep the world had begun.
The book was The Constitution
of Liberty by Frederick Hayek . Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an
outright racket.
The philosophy
was called neoliberalism . It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a
natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design.
Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive.
Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone.
This, at any rate, is how it was originally conceived. But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the
network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of
defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set
out to close the gap.
He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions
as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour
of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands.
Democracy, by contrast, "is not an ultimate or absolute value". In fact, liberty depends on preventing the majority from exercising
choice over the direction that politics and society might take.
He justifies this position by creating a heroic narrative of extreme wealth. He conflates the economic elite, spending their money
in new ways, with philosophical and scientific pioneers. Just as the political philosopher should be free to think the unthinkable,
so the very rich should be free to do the undoable, without constraint by public interest or public opinion.
The ultra rich are "scouts", "experimenting with new styles of living", who blaze the trails that the rest of society will follow.
The progress of society depends on the liberty of these "independents" to gain as much money as they want and spend it how they wish.
All that is good and useful, therefore, arises from inequality. There should be no connection between merit and reward, no distinction
made between earned and unearned income, and no limit to the rents they can charge.
Inherited wealth is more socially useful than earned wealth: "the idle rich", who don't have to work for their money, can devote
themselves to influencing "fields of thought and opinion, of tastes and beliefs". Even when they seem to be spending money on nothing
but "aimless display", they are in fact acting as society's vanguard.
Hayek softened his opposition to monopolies and hardened his opposition to trade unions. He lambasted progressive taxation and
attempts by the state to raise the general welfare of citizens. He insisted that there is "an overwhelming case against a free health
service for all" and dismissed the conservation of natural resources. It should come as no surprise to those who follow such matters
that he was awarded
the Nobel prize for economics .
By the time Thatcher slammed his book on the table, a lively network of thinktanks, lobbyists and academics promoting Hayek's
doctrines had been established on both sides of the Atlantic,
abundantly financed by some of the world's richest people and
businesses , including DuPont, General Electric, the Coors brewing company, Charles Koch, Richard Mellon Scaife, Lawrence Fertig,
the William Volker Fund and the Earhart Foundation. Using psychology and linguistics to brilliant effect, the thinkers these people
sponsored found the words and arguments required to turn Hayek's anthem to the elite into a plausible political programme.
Thatcherism and Reaganism were not ideologies in their own right: they were just two faces of neoliberalism. Their massive tax
cuts for the rich, crushing of trade unions, reduction in public housing, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition
in public services were all proposed by Hayek and his disciples. But the real triumph of this network was not its capture of the
right, but its colonisation of parties that once stood for everything Hayek detested.
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair did not possess a narrative of their own. Rather than develop a new political story, they thought
it was sufficient to
triangulate
. In other words, they extracted a few elements of what their parties had once believed, mixed them with elements of what their
opponents believed, and developed from this unlikely combination a "third way".
It was inevitable that the blazing, insurrectionary confidence of neoliberalism would exert a stronger gravitational pull than
the dying star of social democracy. Hayek's triumph could be witnessed everywhere from Blair's expansion of the private finance initiative
to Clinton's
repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act , which had regulated the financial sector. For all his grace and touch, Barack Obama, who didn't
possess a narrative either (except "hope"), was slowly reeled in by those who owned the means of persuasion.
As I warned
in April, the result is first disempowerment then disenfranchisement. If the dominant ideology stops governments from changing
social outcomes, they can no longer respond to the needs of the electorate. Politics becomes irrelevant to people's lives; debate
is reduced to the jabber of a remote elite. The disenfranchised turn instead to a virulent anti-politics in which facts and arguments
are replaced by slogans, symbols and sensation. The man who sank Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency was not Donald Trump. It
was her husband.
The paradoxical result is that the backlash against neoliberalism's crushing of political choice has elevated just the kind of
man that Hayek worshipped. Trump, who has no coherent politics, is not a classic neoliberal. But he is the perfect representation
of Hayek's "independent"; the beneficiary of inherited wealth, unconstrained by common morality, whose gross predilections strike
a new path that others may follow. The neoliberal thinktankers are now swarming round this hollow man, this empty vessel waiting
to be filled by those who know what they want. The likely result is the demolition of our remaining decencies,
beginning with the agreement to limit global warming .
Those who tell the stories run the world. Politics has failed through a lack of competing narratives. The key task now is to tell
a new story of what it is to be a human in the 21st century. It must be as appealing to some who have voted for Trump and Ukip as
it is to the supporters of Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn.
A few of us have been working on this, and can discern what may be the beginning of a story. It's too early to say much yet, but
at its core is the recognition that – as modern psychology and neuroscience make abundantly clear – human beings, by comparison with
any other animals, are both
remarkably social and
remarkably
unselfish . The atomisation and self-interested behaviour neoliberalism promotes run counter to much of what comprises human
nature.
Hayek told us who we are, and he was wrong. Our first step is to reclaim our humanity.
justamug -> Skytree 16 Nov 2016 18:17
Thanks for the chuckle. On a more serious note - defining neoliberalism is not that easy since it is not a laid out philosophy
like liberalism, or socialism, or communism or facism. Since 2008 the use of the word neoliberalism has increased in frequency
and has come to mean different things to different people.
A common theme appears to be the negative effects of the market on the human condition.
Having read David Harvey's book, and Phillip Mirowski's book (both had a go at defining neoliberalism and tracing its history)
it is clear that neoliberalism is not really coherent set of ideas.
ianfraser3 16 Nov 2016 17:54
EF Schumacher quoted "seek first the kingdom of God" in his epilogue of "Small Is Beautiful: a study of economics as if people
mattered". This was written in the early 1970s before the neoliberal project bit in the USA and the UK. The book is laced with
warnings about the effects of the imposition of neoliberalism on society, people and the planet. The predictions have largely
come true. New politics and economics needed, by leaders who place at the heart of their approach the premise, and fact, that
humans are "by comparison with any other animals, are both remarkably social and remarkably unselfish". It is about reclaiming
our humanity from a project that treats people as just another commodity.
Filipio -> YouDidntBuildThat 16 Nov 2016 17:42
Whoa there, slow down.
Your last post was questioning the reality of neoliberalism as a general policy direction that had become hegemonic across
many governments (and most in the west) over recent decades. Now you seem to be agreeing that the notion does have salience, but
that neoliberalism delivered positive rather than negative consequences.
Well, its an ill wind that blows nobody any good, huh?
Doubtless there were some positive outcomes for particular groups. But recall that the context for this thread is not whether,
on balance, more people benefited from neoliberal policies than were harmed -- an argument that would be most powerful only in
very utilitarian style frameworks of thought (most good for the many, or most harm for only the few). The thread is about the
significance of the impacts of neoliberalism in the rise of Trump. And in specific relation to privatisation (just one dimension
of neoliberalism) one key impact was downsizing (or 'rightsizing'; restructuring). There is a plethora of material, including
sociological and psychological, on the harm caused by shrinking and restructured work-forces as a consequence of privatisation.
Books have been written, even in the business management sector, about how poorly such 'change' was handled and the multiple deleterious
outcomes experienced by employees.
And we're still only talking about one dimension of neoliberalism! Havn't even touched on deregulation yet (notably, labour
market and financial sector).
The general thrust is about the gradual hollowing out of the middle class (or more affluent working class, depending on
the analytical terms being used), about insecurity, stress, casualisation, rising wage inequality.
You want evidence? I'm not doing your research for you. The internet can be a great resource, or merely an echo chamber. The
problem with so many of the alt-right (and this applies on the extreme left as well) is that they only look to confirm their views,
not read widely. Open your eyes, and use your search engine of choice. There is plenty out there. Be open to having your preconceptions
challenged.
RichardErskine -> LECKJ3000 16 Nov 2016 15:38
LECKJ3000 - I am not an economist, but surely the theoretical idealised mechanisms of the market are never realised in practice.
US subsidizing their farmers, in EU too, etc. And for problems that are not only externalities but transnational ones, the idea
that some Hayek mechanism will protect thr ozone layer or limit carbon emissions, without some regulation or tax.
Lord Stern called global warming the greatest market failure in history, but no market, however sophisticated, can deal with
it without some price put on the effluent of product (the excessive CO2 we put into the atmosphere).
As with Montreal and subsequent agreements, there is a way to maintain a level playing field; to promote different substances
for use as refrigerants; and to address the hole in ozone layer; without abandoning the market altogether. Simple is good, because
it avoids over-engineering the interventions (and the unintended consequences you mention).
The same could/ should be true of global warming, but we have left it so late we cannot wait for the (inevitable) fall of fossil
fuels and supremacy of renewables. We need a price on carbon, which is a graduated and fast rising tax essentially on its production
and/or consumption, which has already started to happen ( http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SDN/background-note_carbon-tax.pdf
), albeit not deep / fast / extensive enough, or international in character, but that will come, if not before the impacts really
bite then soon after.
So Hayek, I feel, is like many theoreticians, in that he seems to want a pure world that will function according to a simple
and universal law. The world never was, and never will be that simple, and current economics simply continues to have a blindspot
for externalities that overwhelm the logic of an unfettered so-called free market.
LionelKent -> greven 16 Nov 2016 14:59
And persistent. J.K. Galbraith viewed the rightwing mind as predominantly concerned with figuring out a way to justify the
shift of wealth from the immense majority to an elite at the top. I for one regret acutely that he did not (as far as I know)
write a volume on his belief in progressive taxation.
RandomLibertarian -> JVRTRL 16 Nov 2016 09:19
Not bad points.
When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more
expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would
have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market.
Do not forget that the USG, in WW2, took the deliberate step of allowing employers to provide health insurance as a tax-free
benefit - which it still is, being free even from SS and Medicare taxes. In the post-war boom years this resulted in the development
of a system with private rooms, almost on-demand access to specialists, and competitive pay for all involved (while the NHS, by
contrast, increasingly drew on immigrant populations for nurses and below). Next, the large sums of money in the system and a
generous court system empowered a vast malpractice industry. So to call our system in any way a consequence of a free market is
a misnomer.
Entirely state controlled health care systems tend to be even more cost-effective.
Read Megan McArdle's work in this area. The US has had similar cost growth since the 1970s to the rest of the world. The problem
was that it started from a higher base.
Part of the issue is that privatization tends to create feedback mechanism that increase the size of spending in programs.
Even Eisenhower's noted "military industrial complex" is an illustration of what happens when privatization really takes hold.
When government becomes involved in business, business gets involved in government!
Todd Smekens 16 Nov 2016 08:40
Albert Einstein said, "capitalism is evil" in his famous dictum called, "Why Socialism" in 1949. He also called communism,
"evil", so don't jump to conclusions, comrades. ;)
His reasoning was it distorts a human beings longing for the social aspect. I believe George references this in his statement
about people being "unselfish". This is noted by both science and philosophy.
Einstein noted that historically, the conqueror would establish the new order, and since 1949, Western Imperialism has continued
on with the predatory phase of acquiring and implementing democracy/capitalism. This needs to end. As we've learned rapidly, capitalism
isn't sustainable. We are literally overheating the earth which sustains us. Very unwise.
Einstein wrote, "Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to
protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate
abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures,
to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting,
strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual
can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society."
Personally, I'm glad George and others are working on a new economic and social construct for us "human beings". It's time
we leave the predatory phase of "us versus them", and construct a new society which works for the good of our now, global society.
zavaell -> LECKJ3000 16 Nov 2016 06:28
The problem is that both you and Monbiot fail to mention that your "the spontaneous order of the market" does not recognize
externalities and climate change is outside Hayek's thinking - he never wrote about sustainability or the limits on resources,
let alone the consequences of burning fossil fuels. There is no beauty in what he wrote - it was a cold, mechanical model that
assumed certain human behaviour but not others. Look at today's money-makers - they are nearly all climate change deniers and
we have to have government to reign them in.
aLERNO 16 Nov 2016 04:52
Good, short and concise article. But the FIRST NEOLIBERAL MILESTONE WAS THE 1973 COUP D'ETAT IN CHILE, which not surprisingly
also deposed the first democratically-elected socialist government.
accipiter15 16 Nov 2016 02:34
A great article and explanation of the influence of Hayek on Thatcher. Unfortunately this country is still suffering the consequences
of her tenure and Osborne was also a proponent of her policies and look where we are as a consequence. The referendum gave the
people the opportunity to vent their anger and if we had PR I suspect we would have a greater turn-out and nearly always have
some sort of coalition where nothing gets done that is too hurtful to the population. As for Trump, again his election is an expression
of anger and desperation. However, the American voting system is as unfair as our own - again this has probably been the cause
of the low turn-out. Why should people vote when they do not get fair representation - it is a waste of time and not democratic.
I doubt that Trump is Keynsian I suspect he doesn't have an economic theory at all. I just hope that the current economic thinking
prevailing currently in this country, which is still overshadowed by Thatcher and the free market, with no controls over the city
casino soon collapses and we can start from a fairer and more inclusive base!
JVRTRL -> Keypointist 16 Nov 2016 02:15
The system that Clinton developed was an inheritance from George H.W. Bush, Reagan (to a large degree), Carter, with another
large assist from Nixon and the Powell Memo.
Bill Clinton didn't do it by himself. The GOP did it with him hand-in-hand, with the only resistance coming from a minority
within the Democratic party.
Trump's victory was due to many factors. A large part of it was Hillary Clinton's campaign and the candidate. Part of it was
the effectiveness of the GOP massive resistance strategy during the Obama years, wherein they pursued a course of obstruction
in an effort to slow the rate of the economic recovery (e.g. as evidence of the bad faith, they are resurrecting a $1 trillion
infrastructure bill that Obama originally proposed in 2012, and now that they have full control, all the talk about "deficits"
goes out the window).
Obama and the Democratic party also bear responsibility for not recognizing the full scope of the financial collapse in 2008-2009,
passing a stimulus package that was about $1 trillion short of spending needed to accelerate the recovery by the 2010 mid-terms,
combined with a weak financial regulation law (which the GOP is going to destroy), an overly complicated health care law -- classic
technocratic, neoliberal incremental policy -- and the failure of the Obama administration to hold Wall Street accountable for
criminal misconduct relating to the financial crisis. Obama's decision to push unpopular trade agreements didn't help either.
As part of the post-mortem, the decision to continuing pushing the TPP may have cost Clinton in the rust belt states that went
for Trump. The agreement was unpopular, and her shift on the policy didn't come across as credible. People noticed as well that
Obama was trying to pass the measure through the lame-duck session of Congress post-election. With Trump's election, the TPP is
done too.
JVRTRL daltonknox67 16 Nov 2016 02:00
There is no iron law that says a country has to run large trade deficits. The existence of large trade deficits is usually
a result of policy choices.
Growth also hasn't gone into the tank. What's changed is the distribution of the gains in GDP growth -- that is in no small
part a direct consequence of changes in policy since the 1970s. It isn't some "market place magic". We have made major changes
to tax laws since that time. We have weakened collective bargaining, which obviously has a negative impact on wages. We have shifted
the economy towards financial services, which has the tendency of increasing inequality.
The idea too that people will be "poorer" than in the 1920s and 1930s is just plain ignorant. It has no basis in any of the
data. Wages in the bottom quartile have actually decreased slightly since the 1970s in real terms, but those wages in the 1970s
were still exponentially higher than wages in the 1920s in real terms.
Wages aren't stagnating because people are working less. Wages have stagnated because of dumb policy choices that have tended
to incentives looting by those at the top of the income distribution from workers in the lower parts of the economy. The 2008
bailouts were a clear illustration of this reality. People in industries rigged rules to benefit themselves. They misallocated
resources. Then they went to representatives and taxpayers and asked for a large no-strings attached handout that was effectively
worth trillions of dollars (e.g. hundreds of billions through TARP, trillions more through other programs). As these players become
wealthier, they have an easier time buying politicians to rig rules further to their advantage.
JVRTRL -> RandomLibertarian 16 Nov 2016 01:44
"The tyranny of the 51 per cent is the oldest and most solid argument against a pure democracy."
"Tyranny of the majority" is always a little bizarre, given that the dynamics of majority rule are unlike the governmental
structures of an actual tyranny. Even in the context of the U.S. we had minority rule due to voting restrictions for well over
a century that was effectively a tyranny for anyone who was denied the ability to participation in the elections process. Pure
majorities can go out of control, especially in a country with massive wealth disparities and with weak civic institutions.
On the other hand, this is part of the reason to construct a system of checks and balances. It's also part of the argument
for representative democracy.
"Neoliberalism" is entirely compatible with "growth of the state". Reagan greatly enlarged the state. He privatized several
functions and it actually had the effect of increasing spending.
When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more
expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would
have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market.
Entirely state controlled health care systems tend to be even more cost-effective. Part of the issue is that privatization
tends to create feedback mechanism that increase the size of spending in programs. Even Eisenhower's noted "military industrial
complex" is an illustration of what happens when privatization really takes hold.
daltonknox67 15 Nov 2016 21:46
After WWII most of the industrialised world had been bombed or fought over with destruction of infrastructure and manufacturing.
The US alone was undamaged. It enjoyed a manufacturing boom that lasted until the 70's when competition from Germany and Japan,
and later Taiwan, Korea and China finally brought it to an end.
As a result Americans born after 1950 will be poorer than the generation born in the 20's and 30's.
This is not a conspiracy or government malfunction. It is a quirk of history. Get over it and try working.
Arma Geddon 15 Nov 2016 21:11
Another nasty neoliberal policy of Reagan and Thatcher, was to close all the mental hospitals, and to sweeten the pill to sell
to the voters, they called it Care in the Community, except by the time those hospitals closed and the people who had to relay
on those institutions, they found out and are still finding out that there is very little care in the community left any more,
thanks to Thatcher's disintegration of the ethos community spirit.
In their neoliberal mantra of thinking, you are on your own now, tough, move on, because you are hopeless and non productive,
hence you are a burden to taxpayers.
Its been that way of thinking for over thirty years, and now the latest group targeted, are the sick and disabled, victims
of the neoliberal made banking crash and its neoliberal inspired austerity, imposed of those least able to fight back or defend
themselves i.e. vulnerable people again!
AlfredHerring GimmeHendrix 15 Nov 2016 20:23
It was in reference to Maggie slapping a copy of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty on the table and saying this is what we believe.
As soon as you introduce the concept of belief you're talking about religion hence completeness while Hayek was writing about
economics which demands consistency. i.e. St. Maggie was just as bad as any Stalinist: economics and religion must be kept separate
or you get a bunch of dead peasants for no reason other than your own vanity.
Ok, religion based on a sky god who made us all is problematic but at least there's always the possibility of supplication
and miracles. Base a religion on economic theory and you're just making sausage of your neighbors kids.
TanTan -> crystaltips2 15 Nov 2016 20:10
If you claim that the only benefit of private enterprise is its taxability, as you did, then why not cut out the middle man
and argue for full state-directed capitalism?
Because it is plainly obvious that private enterprise is not directed toward the public good (and by definition). As we have
both agreed, it needs to have the right regulations and framework to give it some direction in that regard. What "the radical
left" are pointing out is that the idea of private enterprise is now completely out of control, to the point where voters are
disenfranchised because private enterprise has more say over what the government does than the people. Which is clearly a problem.
As for the rest, it's the usual practice of gathering every positive metric available and somehow attributing it to neoliberalism,
no matter how tenuous the threads, and as always with zero rigour. Supposedly capitalism alone doubled life expectancy, supports
billions of extra lives, invented the railways, and provides the drugs and equipment that keep us alive. As though public education,
vaccines, antibiotics, and massive availability of energy has nothing to do with those things.
As for this computer being the invention of capitalism, who knows, but I suppose if one were to believe that everything was
invented and created by capitalism and monetary motives then one might believe that. Energy allotments referred to the limit of
our usage of readily available fossil fuels which you remain blissfully unaware of.
Children have already been educated to agree with you, in no small part due to a fear of the communist regimes at the time,
but at the expense of critical thinking. Questioning the system even when it has plainly been undermined to its core is quickly
labelled "radical" regardless of the normalcy of the query. I don't know what you could possibly think left-wing motives could
be, but your own motives are plain to see when you immediately lump people who care about the planet in with communist idealogues.
If rampant capitalism was going to solve our problems I'm all for it, but it will take a miracle to reverse the damage it has
already done, and only a fool would trust it any further.
YouDidntBuildThat -> Filipio 15 Nov 2016 20:06
Filipo
You argue that a great many government functions have been privatized. I agree. Yet strangely you present zero evidence of
any downsides of that happening. Most of the academic research shows a net benefit, not just on budgets but on employee and customer
satisfaction. See for example.
And despite these privitazation cost savings and alleged neoliberal "austerity" government keeps taking a larger share of our
money, like a malignant cancer. No worries....We're from the government, and we're here to help.
Keypointist 15 Nov 2016 20:04
I think the damage was done when the liberal left co-opted neo-liberalism. What happened under Bill Clinton was the development
of crony capitalism where for example the US banks were told to lower their credit standards to lend to people who couldn't really
afford to service the loans.
It was this that created too big to fail and the financial crisis of 2008. Conservative neo-liberals believe passionately in
competition and hate monopolies. The liberal left removed was was productive about neo-liberalism and replaced it with a kind
of soft state capitalism where big business was protected by the state and the tax payer was called on to bail out these businesses.
THIS more than anything else led to Trump's victory.
"... The word ["neoliberalism"] has become a rhetorical weapon, but it properly names the reigning ideology of our era – one that venerates the logic of the market and strips away the things that make us human. ..."
"... Last summer, researchers at the International Monetary Fund settled a long and bitter debate over "neoliberalism": they admitted it exists. Three senior economists at the IMF, an organisation not known for its incaution, published a paper questioning the benefits of neoliberalism ..."
"... The paper gently called out a "neoliberal agenda" for pushing deregulation on economies around the world, for forcing open national markets to trade and capital, and for demanding that governments shrink themselves via austerity or privatisation. The authors cited statistical evidence for the spread of neoliberal policies since 1980, and their correlation with anaemic growth, boom-and-bust cycles and inequality. ..."
"... In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, it was a way of assigning responsibility for the debacle, not to a political party per se, but to an establishment that had conceded its authority to the market. For the Democrats in the US and Labour in the UK, this concession was depicted as a grotesque betrayal of principle. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, it was said, had abandoned the left's traditional commitments, especially to workers, in favour of a global financial elite and the self-serving policies that enriched them; and in doing so, had enabled a sickening rise in inequality. ..."
"... Peer through the lens of neoliberalism and you see more clearly how the political thinkers most admired by Thatcher and Reagan helped shape the ideal of society as a kind of universal market ..."
"... Of course the goal was to weaken the welfare state and any commitment to full employment, and – always – to cut taxes and deregulate. But "neoliberalism" indicates something more than a standard rightwing wish list. It was a way of reordering social reality, and of rethinking our status as individuals. ..."
"... In short, "neoliberalism" is not simply a name for pro-market policies, or for the compromises with finance capitalism made by failing social democratic parties. It is a name for a premise that, quietly, has come to regulate all we practise and believe: that competition is the only legitimate organising principle for human activity. ..."
"... No sooner had neoliberalism been certified as real, and no sooner had it made clear the universal hypocrisy of the market, than the populists and authoritarians came to power ..."
"... Against the forces of global integration, national identity is being reasserted, and in the crudest possible terms. What could the militant parochialism of Brexit Britain and Trumpist America have to do with neoliberal rationality? ..."
"... It isn't only that the free market produces a tiny cadre of winners and an enormous army of losers – and the losers, looking for revenge, have turned to Brexit and Trump. There was, from the beginning, an inevitable relationship between the utopian ideal of the free market and the dystopian present in which we find ourselves; ..."
"... That Hayek is considered the grandfather of neoliberalism – a style of thought that reduces everything to economics – is a little ironic given that he was such a mediocre economist. ..."
"... This last is what makes neoliberalism "neo". It is a crucial modification of the older belief in a free market and a minimal state, known as "classical liberalism". In classical liberalism, merchants simply asked the state to "leave us alone" – to laissez-nous faire. Neoliberalism recognised that the state must be active in the organisation of a market economy. The conditions allowing for a free market must be won politically, and the state must be re-engineered to support the free market on an ongoing basis. ..."
"... Hayek had only his idea to console him; an idea so grand it would one day dissolve the ground beneath the feet of Keynes and every other intellectual. Left to its own devices, the price system functions as a kind of mind. And not just any mind, but an omniscient one: the market computes what individuals cannot grasp. Reaching out to him as an intellectual comrade-in-arms, the American journalist Walter Lippmann wrote to Hayek, saying: "No human mind has ever understood the whole scheme of a society At best a mind can understand its own version of the scheme, something much thinner, which bears to reality some such relation as a silhouette to a man." ..."
"... The only social end is the maintenance of the market itself. In its omniscience, the market constitutes the only legitimate form of knowledge, next to which all other modes of reflection are partial, in both senses of the word: they comprehend only a fragment of a whole and they plead on behalf of a special interest. Individually, our values are personal ones, or mere opinions; collectively, the market converts them into prices, or objective facts. ..."
"... According to the logic of Hayek's Big Idea, these expressions of human subjectivity are meaningless without ratification by the market ..."
"... ociety reconceived as a giant market leads to a public life lost to bickering over mere opinions; until the public turns, finally, in frustration to a strongman as a last resort for solving its otherwise intractable problems. ..."
"... What began as a new form of intellectual authority, rooted in a devoutly apolitical worldview, nudged easily into an ultra-reactionary politics ..."
The word ["neoliberalism"] has become a rhetorical weapon, but it properly names the reigning ideology of
our era – one that venerates the logic of the market and strips away the things that make us human.
Last summer, researchers at the International Monetary Fund settled a long and bitter debate over
"neoliberalism": they admitted it exists. Three senior economists at the IMF, an organisation not
known for its incaution, published
a paper questioning
the benefits of neoliberalism. In so doing, they helped put to rest the idea that the word is
nothing more than a political slur, or a term without any analytic power. The paper gently called
out a "neoliberal agenda" for pushing deregulation on economies around the world, for forcing open
national markets to trade and capital, and for demanding that governments shrink themselves via austerity
or privatisation. The authors cited statistical evidence for the spread of neoliberal policies since
1980, and their correlation with anaemic growth, boom-and-bust cycles and inequality.
Neoliberalism is an old term, dating back to the 1930s, but it has been revived as a way of describing
our current politics – or more precisely,
the range of thought allowed by our politics . In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis,
it was a way of assigning responsibility for the debacle, not to a political party per se, but to
an establishment that had conceded its authority to the market. For the Democrats in the US and Labour
in the UK, this concession was depicted as a grotesque betrayal of principle. Bill Clinton and Tony
Blair, it was said, had abandoned the left's traditional commitments, especially to workers, in favour
of a global financial elite and the self-serving policies that enriched them; and in doing so, had
enabled a sickening rise in inequality.
Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world – podcast
Over the past few years, as debates have turned uglier, the word has become a rhetorical weapon,
a way for anyone left of centre to incriminate those even an inch to their right. (No wonder centrists
say it's a meaningless insult: they're the ones most meaningfully insulted by it.) But "neoliberalism"
is more than a gratifyingly righteous jibe. It is also, in its way, a pair of eyeglasses.
Peer through the lens of neoliberalism and you see more clearly how the political thinkers most
admired by Thatcher and Reagan helped shape the ideal of society as a kind of universal market
(and
not, for example, a polis, a civil sphere or a kind of family) and of human beings as profit-and-loss
calculators (and not bearers of grace, or of inalienable rights and duties). Of course the goal
was to weaken the welfare state and any commitment to full employment, and – always – to cut taxes
and deregulate. But "neoliberalism" indicates something more than a standard rightwing wish list.
It was a way of reordering social reality, and of rethinking our status as individuals.
Still peering through the lens, you see how, no less than the welfare state, the free market
is a human invention. You see how pervasively we are now urged to think of ourselves as proprietors
of our own talents and initiative, how glibly we are told to compete and adapt. You see the extent
to which a language formerly confined to chalkboard simplifications describing commodity markets
(competition, perfect information, rational behaviour) has been applied to all of society, until
it has invaded the grit of our personal lives, and how the attitude of the salesman has become enmeshed
in all modes of self-expression.
In short, "neoliberalism" is not simply a name for pro-market policies, or for the compromises
with finance capitalism made by failing social democratic parties. It is a name for a premise that,
quietly, has come to regulate all we practise and believe: that competition is the only legitimate
organising principle for human activity.
No sooner had neoliberalism been certified as real, and no sooner had it made clear the universal
hypocrisy of the market, than the populists and authoritarians came to power. In the US, Hillary
Clinton, the neoliberal arch-villain, lost – and to a man who knew just enough
to pretend he hated free trade . So are the eyeglasses now useless? Can they do anything to help
us understand what is broken about British and American politics? Against the forces of global
integration, national identity is being reasserted, and in the crudest possible terms. What could
the militant parochialism of Brexit Britain and Trumpist America have to do with neoliberal rationality?
What possible connection is there between the president – a freewheeling boob – and the bloodless
paragon of efficiency known as the free market?
It isn't only that the free market produces a tiny cadre of winners and an enormous army of
losers – and the losers, looking for revenge, have turned to Brexit and Trump. There was, from the
beginning, an inevitable relationship between the utopian ideal of the free market and the dystopian
present in which we find ourselves; between the market as unique discloser of value and guardian
of liberty, and our current descent into post-truth and illiberalism.
Moving the stale debate about neoliberalism forward begins, I think, with taking seriously the
measure of its cumulative effect on all of us, regardless of affiliation. And this requires returning
to its origins, which have nothing to do with Bill or Hillary Clinton. There once was a group of
people who did call themselves neoliberals, and did so proudly, and their ambition was a total revolution
in thought. The most prominent among them, Friedrich Hayek, did not think he was staking out a position
on the political spectrum, or making excuses for the fatuous rich, or tinkering along the edges of
microeconomics.
He thought he was solving the problem of modernity: the problem of objective knowledge. For Hayek,
the market didn't just facilitate trade in goods and services; it revealed truth. How did his ambition
collapse into its opposite – the mind-bending possibility that, thanks to our thoughtless veneration
of the free market, truth might be driven from public life altogether?
When the idea occurred to Friedrich Hayek in 1936, he knew, with the conviction of a "sudden illumination",
that he had struck upon something new. "How can the combination of fragments of knowledge existing
in different minds," he wrote, "bring about results which, if they were to be brought about deliberately,
would require a knowledge on the part of the directing mind which no single person can possess?"
This was not a technical point about interest rates or deflationary slumps. This was not a reactionary
polemic against collectivism or the welfare state. This was a way of birthing a new world. To his
mounting excitement, Hayek understood that the market could be thought of as a kind of mind.
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" had already given us the modern conception of the market: as an
autonomous sphere of human activity and therefore, potentially, a valid object of scientific knowledge.
But Smith was, until the end of his life, an 18th-century moralist. He thought the market could be
justified only in light of individual virtue, and he was anxious that a society governed by nothing
but transactional self-interest was no society at all. Neoliberalism is Adam Smith without the anxiety.
That Hayek is considered the grandfather of neoliberalism – a style of thought that reduces
everything to economics – is a little ironic given that he was such a mediocre economist. He
was just a young, obscure Viennese technocrat when he was recruited to the London School of
Economics to compete
with, or possibly even dim, the rising star of John Maynard Keynes at Cambridge.
The plan backfired, and Hayek lost out to Keynes in a rout. Keynes's General Theory of Employment,
Interest and Money, published in 1936, was greeted as a masterpiece. It dominated the public discussion,
especially among young English economists in training, for whom the brilliant, dashing, socially
connected Keynes was a beau idéal . By the end of the second world war, many prominent free-marketers
had come around to Keynes's way of thinking, conceding that government might play a role in managing
a modern economy. The initial excitement over Hayek had dissipated. His peculiar notion that doing
nothing could cure an economic depression had been discredited in theory and practice. He later admitted
that he wished his work criticising Keynes would simply be forgotten.
... Hayek built into neoliberalism the assumption that the market provides all necessary protection
against the one real political danger: totalitarianism. To prevent this, the state need only keep
the market free.
This last is what makes neoliberalism "neo". It is a crucial modification of the older belief
in a free market and a minimal state, known as "classical liberalism". In classical liberalism, merchants
simply asked the state to "leave us alone" – to laissez-nous faire. Neoliberalism recognised that
the state must be active in the organisation of a market economy. The conditions allowing for a free
market must be won politically, and the state must be re-engineered to support the free market on
an ongoing basis.
That isn't all: every aspect of democratic politics, from the choices of voters to the decisions
of politicians, must be submitted to a purely economic analysis. The lawmaker is obliged to leave
well enough alone – to not distort the natural actions of the marketplace – and so, ideally, the
state provides a fixed, neutral, universal legal framework within which market forces operate spontaneously.
The conscious direction of government is never preferable to the "automatic mechanism of adjustment"
– ie the price system, which is not only efficient but maximises liberty, or the opportunity for
men and women to make free choices about their own lives.
As Keynes jetted between London and Washington, creating the postwar order, Hayek sat pouting
in Cambridge. He had been sent there during the wartime evacuations; and he complained that he was
surrounded by "foreigners" and "no lack of orientals of all kinds" and "Europeans of practically
all nationalities, but very few of real intelligence".
Stuck in England, without influence or respect, Hayek had only his idea to console him; an
idea so grand it would one day dissolve the ground beneath the feet of Keynes and every other intellectual.
Left to its own devices, the price system functions as a kind of mind. And not just any mind, but
an omniscient one: the market computes what individuals cannot grasp. Reaching out to him as an intellectual
comrade-in-arms, the American journalist Walter Lippmann wrote to Hayek, saying: "No human mind has
ever understood the whole scheme of a society At best a mind can understand its own version of
the scheme, something much thinner, which bears to reality some such relation as a silhouette to
a man."
It is a grand epistemological claim – that the market is a way of knowing, one that radically
exceeds the capacity of any individual mind. Such a market is less a human contrivance, to be manipulated
like any other, than a force to be studied and placated. Economics ceases to be a technique – as
Keynes believed it to be – for achieving desirable social ends, such as growth or stable money.
The only social end is the maintenance of the market itself. In its omniscience, the market constitutes
the only legitimate form of knowledge, next to which all other modes of reflection are partial, in
both senses of the word: they comprehend only a fragment of a whole and they plead on behalf of a
special interest. Individually, our values are personal ones, or mere opinions; collectively, the
market converts them into prices, or objective facts.
... ... ...
The more Hayek's idea expands, the more reactionary it gets, the more it hides behind its pretence
of scientific neutrality – and the more it allows economics to link up with the major intellectual
trend of the west since the 17th century. The rise of modern science generated a problem: if the
world is universally obedient to natural laws, what does it mean to be human? Is a human being simply
an object in the world, like any other? There appears to be no way to assimilate the subjective,
interior human experience into nature as science conceives it – as something objective whose rules
we discover by observation.
... ... ...
More than anyone, even Hayek himself, it was the great postwar Chicago economist Milton Friedman
who helped convert governments and politicians to the power of Hayek's Big Idea. But first he broke
with two centuries of precedent and declared that economics is "in principle independent of any particular
ethical position or normative judgments" and is "an 'objective' science, in precisely the same sense
as any of the physical sciences". Values of the old, mental, normative kind were defective, they
were "differences about which men can ultimately only fight". There is the market, in other words,
and there is relativism.
Markets may be human facsimiles of natural systems, and like the universe itself, they may be
authorless and valueless. But the application of Hayek's Big Idea to every aspect of our lives negates
what is most distinctive about us. That is, it assigns what is most human about human beings – our
minds and our volition – to algorithms and markets, leaving us to mimic, zombie-like, the shrunken
idealisations of economic models. Supersizing Hayek's idea and radically upgrading the price system
into a kind of social omniscience means radically downgrading the importance of our individual capacity
to reason – our ability to provide and evaluate justifications for our actions and beliefs.
As a result, the public sphere – the space where we offer up reasons, and contest the reasons
of others – ceases to be a space for deliberation, and becomes a market in clicks, likes and retweets.
The internet is personal preference magnified by algorithm; a pseudo-public space that echoes the
voice already inside our head. Rather than a space of debate in which we make our way, as a society,
toward consensus, now there is a mutual-affirmation apparatus banally referred to as a "marketplace
of ideas". What looks like something public and lucid is only an extension of our own pre-existing
opinions, prejudices and beliefs, while the authority of institutions and experts has been displaced
by the aggregative logic of big data. When we access the world through a search engine, its results
are ranked, as the founder of Google puts it, "recursively" – by an infinity of individual users
functioning as a market, continuously and in real time.
... ... ...
According to the logic of Hayek's Big Idea, these expressions of human subjectivity are meaningless
without ratification by the market – as Friedman said, they are nothing but relativism, each
as good as any other. When the only objective truth is determined by the market, all other values
have the status of mere opinions; everything else is relativist hot air. But Friedman's "relativism"
is a charge that can be thrown at any claim based on human reason. It is a nonsense insult, as all
humanistic pursuits are "relative" in a way the sciences are not. They are relative to the (private)
condition of having a mind, and the (public) need to reason and understand even when we can't expect
scientific proof. When our debates are no longer resolved by deliberation over reasons, then the
whimsies of power will determine the outcome.
This is where the triumph of neoliberalism meets the political nightmare we are living through
now. "You had one job," the old joke goes, and Hayek's grand project, as originally conceived in
30s and 40s, was explicitly designed to prevent a backslide into political chaos and fascism. But
the Big Idea was always this abomination waiting to happen. It was, from the beginning, pregnant
with the thing it was said to protect against. Society reconceived as a giant market leads to
a public life lost to bickering over mere opinions; until the public turns, finally, in frustration
to a strongman as a last resort for solving its otherwise intractable problems.
... ... ...
What began as a new form of intellectual authority, rooted in a devoutly apolitical worldview,
nudged easily into an ultra-reactionary politics. What can't be quantified must not be real,
says the economist, and how do you measure the benefits of the core faiths of the enlightenment –
namely, critical reasoning, personal autonomy and democratic self-government? When we abandoned,
for its embarrassing residue of subjectivity, reason as a form of truth, and made science the sole
arbiter of both the real and the true, we created a void that pseudo-science was happy to fill.
"... By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium ..."
"... Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit, every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist, this is modernization of social security in action! ..."
By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium
The time for rhetorical reservations is over. Things have to be called by their name to make it
possible for a co-ordinated democratic reaction to be initiated, above all in the public services.
Liberalism was a doctrine derived from the philosophy of Enlightenment, at once political and
economic, which aimed at imposing on the state the necessary distance for ensuring respect for liberties
and the coming of democratic emancipation. It was the motor for the arrival, and the continuing progress,
of Western democracies.
Neoliberalism is a form of economism in our day that strikes at every moment at every sector of
our community. It is a form of extremism.
Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic
ideology.
I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection
not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought.
The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate
and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy.
The austerity that is demanded by the financial milieu has become a supreme value, replacing politics.
Saving money precludes pursuing any other public objective. It is reaching the point where claims
are being made that the principle of budgetary orthodoxy should be included in state constitutions.
A mockery is being made of the notion of public service.
The nihilism that results from this makes possible the dismissal of universalism and the most
evident humanistic values: solidarity, fraternity, integration and respect for all and for differences.
There is no place any more even for classical economic theory: work was formerly an element in
demand, and to that extent there was respect for workers; international finance has made of it a
mere adjustment variable.
Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism
has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit,
every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some
of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist,
this is modernization of social security in action!
Abstraction predominates in public discussion so as to occlude the implications for human beings.
Thus, in relation to migrants, it is imperative that the need for hosting them does not lead to
public appeals that our finances could not accommodate. Is it In the same way that other individuals
qualify for assistance out of considerations of national solidarity?
The cult of evaluation
Social Darwinism predominates, assigning the most stringent performance requirements to everyone
and everything: to be weak is to fail. The foundations of our culture are overturned: every humanist
premise is disqualified or demonetized because neoliberalism has the monopoly of rationality and
realism. Margaret Thatcher said it in 1985: "There is no alternative." Everything else is utopianism,
unreason and regression. The virtue of debate and conflicting perspectives are discredited because
history is ruled by necessity.
This subculture harbours an existential threat of its own: shortcomings of performance condemn
one to disappearance while at the same time everyone is charged with inefficiency and obliged to
justify everything. Trust is broken. Evaluation reigns, and with it the bureaucracy which imposes
definition and research of a plethora of targets, and indicators with which one must comply. Creativity
and the critical spirit are stifled by management. And everyone is beating his breast about the wastage
and inertia of which he is guilty.
The neglect of justice
The neoliberal ideology generates a normativity that competes with the laws of parliament. The
democratic power of law is compromised. Given that they represent a concrete embodiment of liberty
and emancipation, and given the potential to prevent abuse that they impose, laws and procedures
have begun to look like obstacles.
The power of the judiciary, which has the ability to oppose the will of the ruling circles, must
also be checkmated. The Belgian judicial system is in any case underfunded. In 2015 it came last
in a European ranking that included all states located between the Atlantic and the Urals. In two
years the government has managed to take away the independence given to it under the Constitution
so that it can play the counterbalancing role citizens expect of it. The aim of this undertaking
is clearly that there should no longer be justice in Belgium.
A caste above the Many
But the dominant class doesn't prescribe for itself the same medicine it wants to see ordinary
citizens taking: well-ordered austerity begins with others. The economist Thomas Piketty has perfectly
described this in his study of inequality and capitalism in the twenty-first century (French edition,
Seuil, 2013).
In spite of the crisis of 2008 and the hand-wringing that followed, nothing was done to police
the financial community and submit them to the requirements of the common good. Who paid? Ordinary
people, you and me.
And while the Belgian State consented to 7 billion-euro ten-year tax breaks for multinationals,
ordinary litigants have seen surcharges imposed on access to justice (increased court fees, 21% taxation
on legal fees). From now on, to obtain redress the victims of injustice are going to have to be rich.
All this in a state where the number of public representatives breaks all international records.
In this particular area, no evaluation and no costs studies are reporting profit. One example: thirty
years after the introduction of the federal system, the provincial institutions survive. Nobody can
say what purpose they serve. Streamlining and the managerial ideology have conveniently stopped at
the gates of the political world.
Terrorism, this other nihilism that exposes our weakness in affirming our values, is likely to
aggravate the process by soon making it possible for all violations of our liberties, all violations
of our rights, to circumvent the powerless qualified judges, further reducing social protection for
the poor, who will be sacrificed to "the security ideal".
Salvation in commitment
These developments certainly threaten the foundations of our democracy, but do they condemn us
to discouragement and despair?
Certainly not. 500 years ago, at the height of the defeats that brought down most Italian states
with the imposition of foreign occupation for more than three centuries, Niccolo Machiavelli urged
virtuous men to defy fate and stand up against the adversity of the times, to prefer action and daring
to caution. The more tragic the situation, the more it necessitates action and the refusal to "give
up" (The Prince, Chapters XXV and XXVI).
This is a teaching that is clearly required today. The determination of citizens attached to the
radical of democratic values is an invaluable resource which has not yet revealed, at least in Belgium,
its driving potential and power to change what is presented as inevitable. Through social networking
and the power of the written word, everyone can now become involved, particularly when it comes to
public services, universities, the student world, the judiciary and the Bar, in bringing the common
good and social justice into the heart of public debate and the administration of the state and the
community.
Neoliberalism is a species of fascism. It must be fought and humanism fully restored.
"... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
"... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
A good friend passed along an
article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely
Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible
- even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that
America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends
roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.
Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the
Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing
an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from
the sales of weaponry to the army.
As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said:
War is a racket
. Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity.
In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile,
the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.
But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North
Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia?
North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:
#1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler
all learned that lesson the hard way).
#2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract
the people from their parlous existence.
#3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America,
at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would
be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore
needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers
their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.
We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or
artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated
versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion
on the shiny new and
under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy,
yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.
The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much
more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.
Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are
ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and
moral) bankruptcy.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years
at military and civilian schools and blogs at
Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted
from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
© Pixabay / Gerd Altmann 354 18 Follow RT on 
